On Apr 30, 2016 12:17 PM, "Borislav Petkov" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 10:47:49AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > Take a look at vread_pvclock. I decided that __pvclock_read_cycles > > was too ugly to use and was very slow and I just gave up and rewrote > > it. > > Should we kill __pvclock_read_cycles in favor of vread_pvclock? It looks > doable at a quick scan... >
The in-kernel version might have to be a bit different because it needs to handle the !stable case. If !stable, it should just use the current CPU's copy which means that, realistically, it should just get_cpu and use the local copy unconditionally. Other than that, it could look a lot like the vread_pvclock variant. But I agree, the current thing is incomprehensible. --Andy > -- > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > > SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB > 21284 (AG Nürnberg) > --
