> From: "Theo de Raadt" <dera...@openbsd.org> > Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 07:30:43 -0600 > > Paul Irofti <p...@irofti.net> wrote: > > > If you change the name to rdtsc_ordered(), OK. > > That is a weaker name. > > Ordered in what way, at what level; ordered against what? > > This is using a specific pipeline ordering known as lfence. > So it might as well say lfence. That is the technical name for > that type of ordering. Being vague is unhelpful.
But maybe the default rdtsc() should include the lfence. And then we could have rdtsc_unordered() for this cases that don't care about ordering. As I wrote in my first mail, cpu_rnd_messybits() may want to use that. And maybe one of the network stack people should investigate what the impact of having the fence in the timecounter is?
