On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 08:45:39AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 08:28 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 05:26:55PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> Il 23/04/2012 16:04, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
> >>> +/* Our own copy of __test_and_clear_bit to make sure
> >>> + * it is done with a single instruction */
> >>
> >> Is this for microoptimization or correctness? If the latter, it does
> >> not ensure anything without a "lock" prefix.
> >>
> > It can't race with other vcpus, only with vmexit on the same vcpu.
> >
>
> That doesn't answer the question very well... I really don't understand
> the point of having a private copy here.
>
> I really, really don't want a bunch of private interfaces around. It
> would be a lot better to define a test_and_{set,clear}_bit_local() in
> <asm/bitops.h> which is defined to be local CPU atomic.
>
> -hpa
Will do. OK to only define them for x86 for now?
They would be unused on other arches even if I defined them ...
> --
> H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
> I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
