On 22/06/2016 10:50, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 06/21/2016 06:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> The following scenario is possible:
>>
>> CPU 1 CPU 2
>> static_key_slow_inc
>> atomic_inc_not_zero
>> -> key.enabled == 0, no increment
>>
On 06/21/2016 06:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> The following scenario is possible:
>
> CPU 1 CPU 2
> static_key_slow_inc
> atomic_inc_not_zero
> -> key.enabled == 0, no increment
> jump_label_lock
> atomic_inc_return
> -> key.ena
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 06:52:17PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> The following scenario is possible:
>
> CPU 1 CPU 2
> static_key_slow_inc
> atomic_inc_not_zero
> -> key.enabled == 0, no increment
> jump_label_lock
> atomic_inc_return
The following scenario is possible:
CPU 1 CPU 2
static_key_slow_inc
atomic_inc_not_zero
-> key.enabled == 0, no increment
jump_label_lock
atomic_inc_return
-> key.enabled == 1 now
stati
4 matches
Mail list logo