>>> On 26.04.16 at 19:23, <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> wrote: > On 04/26/16 19:03, George Dunlap wrote: >> On 19/04/16 17:35, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> Razvan Cojocaru <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> 04/19/16 1:01 PM >>> >>>> I think this might be because the LOCK prefix should guarantee that the >>>> instruction that follows it has exclusive use of shared memory (for both >>>> reads and writes) but I might be misreading the docs: >>> >>> LOCK definitely has no effect on other than the instruction it gets applied >>> to. >> >> Sorry I wasn't involved in this discussion -- what was the conclusion here? >> >> FWIW Andy's suggestion of using a stub seemed like the most robust >> solution, if that could be made to work. >> >> If you're going to submit a patch substantially similar to this one, let >> me know so I can review the mm bits of the original patch. > > I'm not really sure. > > Regarding this version of the patch, Jan has asked for more information > on the performance impact, but I'm not sure how to obtain it in a > rigorous manner.
That was only one half, which Andrew has now answered. The other was the not understood issue with a later variant you had tried. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
