On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 11:24 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > On 04/08/2011 08:42 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>> On 08.04.11 at 17:25, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 04/07/2011 11:38 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: > >>> Is there any downside to this patch (is X86_CMPXCHG in the same sort of > >>> boat?) > >> Only if we don't use cmpxchg in shared memory with other domains or the > >> hypervisor. (I don't think it will dynamically switch between real and > >> emulated cmpxchg depending on availability.) We do use cmpxchg in the grant table code at least (actually, sync_cmpxchng in that case). > > Actually it does - see the "#ifndef CONFIG_X86_CMPXCHG" section > > in asm/cmpxchg_32.h. > > Hm, OK. Still, I'm happiest with that dependency in case someone > knobbles the cpu to exclude cmpxchg and breaks things. Dropping the TSC patch is sensible though? Ian. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
