2017-04-08 15:32-0400, Paolo Bonzini:
> > > Makes sense. My pitch at the documentation after dropping READ_ONCE():
> >
> > I'm confused again, I thought you wanted to keep READ_ONCE().
> >
> > >
> > > /*
> > >* The return value of kvm_request_pending() is implicitly volatile
> >
> > why
> > Makes sense. My pitch at the documentation after dropping READ_ONCE():
>
> I'm confused again, I thought you wanted to keep READ_ONCE().
>
> >
> > /*
> >* The return value of kvm_request_pending() is implicitly volatile
>
> why is that, actually?
>
> >* and must be protected
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 03:15:37PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2017-04-06 16:25+0200, Christoffer Dall:
> > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 10:20:17PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> >> 2017-04-05 19:39+0200, Christoffer Dall:
> >> > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 03:10:50PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> >> x86 uses
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 11:33:33PM +0800, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 06/04/2017 23:08, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > My own made-up lingo to state that each time the variable is accessed it
> > must be loaded anew, taken care of by the volatile use in READ_ONCE. As
> > vcpu->requests can be written
On 06/04/2017 23:08, Andrew Jones wrote:
> My own made-up lingo to state that each time the variable is accessed it
> must be loaded anew, taken care of by the volatile use in READ_ONCE. As
> vcpu->requests can be written by other threads, then I prefer READ_ONCE
> being used to read it, as it a
2017-04-06 16:25+0200, Christoffer Dall:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 10:20:17PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> 2017-04-05 19:39+0200, Christoffer Dall:
>> > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 03:10:50PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> x86 uses KVM_REQ_MCLOCK_INPROGRESS for synchronization between cores and
>> the
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 04:37:51PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > FWIW, I first suggested using READ_ONCE() for the freshness argument,
>
> What is the 'freshness argument' ?
My own made-up lingo to state that each time the variable is accessed it
must be loaded anew, taken care of by the vol
Hi Drew,
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 02:02:12PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 10:20:17PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> > 2017-04-05 19:39+0200, Christoffer Dall:
> > > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 03:10:50PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> > >> 2017-04-04 18:41+0200, Andrew Jones:
> > >>
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 10:20:17PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2017-04-05 19:39+0200, Christoffer Dall:
> > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 03:10:50PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> >> 2017-04-04 18:41+0200, Andrew Jones:
> >> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 05:30:14PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> >> >> On Fr
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 10:20:17PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2017-04-05 19:39+0200, Christoffer Dall:
> > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 03:10:50PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> >> 2017-04-04 18:41+0200, Andrew Jones:
> >> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 05:30:14PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> >> >> On Fr
2017-04-05 19:39+0200, Christoffer Dall:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 03:10:50PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> 2017-04-04 18:41+0200, Andrew Jones:
>> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 05:30:14PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 06:06:50PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
>> >> > From: R
On 05/04/2017 19:39, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> Uses of vcpu->requests should already have barriers that take care of
>> the ordering. I think the main reason for READ_ONCE() is to tell
>> programmers that requests are special, but predictable.
>
> I don't know what to do with "special, but pre
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 03:10:50PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2017-04-04 18:41+0200, Andrew Jones:
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 05:30:14PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 06:06:50PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> >> > From: Radim Krčmář
> >> >
> >> > A first step in vcp
2017-04-04 18:41+0200, Andrew Jones:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 05:30:14PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 06:06:50PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
>> > From: Radim Krčmář
>> >
>> > A first step in vcpu->requests encapsulation.
>>
>> Could we have a note here on why we need
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 05:30:14PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 06:06:50PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > From: Radim Krčmář
> >
> > A first step in vcpu->requests encapsulation.
>
> Could we have a note here on why we need to access vcpu->requests using
> READ_ONCE n
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 06:06:50PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> From: Radim Krčmář
>
> A first step in vcpu->requests encapsulation.
Could we have a note here on why we need to access vcpu->requests using
READ_ONCE now?
Thanks,
-Christoffer
>
> Signed-off-by: Radim Krčmář
> Signed-off-by: An
16 matches
Mail list logo