WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] Linux questions

To: <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Linux questions
From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 11:24:35 +0000
Delivery-date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 03:24:45 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1) Is there a particular reason Jeremy's sched_clock() variant isn't being
used in linux-2.6.18-hg? Specifically, are there any known downsides to
that approach?

2) What is the reason for the inconsistent use of rmb() vs. barrier() in
time-xen.c? It would seem to me that rmb() should be sufficient in all
cases.

3) Why is it that x86-64's __smp_call_function_single(), just like native,
uses cpu_relax() in its wait-for-response loops, while __smp_call_function()
as well as i386's smp_call_function() use barrier(), other than native?

Thanks, Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>