On Wed, 2019-10-02 at 15:20 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 02/10/19 13:05, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > The arm64 code generated for the
> > atomic_[add|sub] accesses of ctx->notify_me doesn't contain any
> > memory barriers. It is just plain ldaxr/stlxr.
> >
> > From my understanding this is not suff
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 09:53 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 19/06/2013 22:25, Torvald Riegel ha scritto:
> > On Wed, 2013-06-19 at 17:14 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> (1) I don't care about relaxed RMW ops (loads/stores occur in hot paths,
> >> but RMW shouldn
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 04:59 +0800, Liu Ping Fan wrote:
> diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost.c b/hw/virtio/vhost.c
> index fbabf99..28abe1e 100644
> --- a/hw/virtio/vhost.c
> +++ b/hw/virtio/vhost.c
> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
> #include
> #include "hw/virtio/vhost.h"
> #include "hw/hw.h"
> +#include "qemu/at
On Wed, 2013-06-19 at 17:14 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 19/06/2013 15:15, Torvald Riegel ha scritto:
> >> One reason is that implementing SC for POWER is quite expensive,
> >
> > Sure, but you don't have to use SC fences or atomics if you don't want
> &g
On Wed, 2013-06-19 at 11:31 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 18/06/2013 18:38, Torvald Riegel ha scritto:
> > I don't think that this is the conclusion here. I strongly suggest to
> > just go with the C11/C++11 model, instead of rolling your own or trying
> > to repli
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 18:53 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 05:37:42PM +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 07:50 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > First, I am not a fan of SC, mostly because there don't seem to be many
> >
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 07:50 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> First, I am not a fan of SC, mostly because there don't seem to be many
> (any?) production-quality algorithms that need SC. But if you really
> want to take a parallel-programming trip back to the 1980s, let's go! ;-)
Dekker-style mut
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 18:08 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 18/06/2013 16:50, Paul E. McKenney ha scritto:
> > PS: Nevertheless, I personally prefer the C++ formulation, but that is
> > only because I stand with one foot in theory and the other in
> > practice. If I were a pure practit
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 15:24 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 17/06/2013 20:57, Richard Henderson ha scritto:
> >> + * And for the few ia64 lovers that exist, an atomic_mb_read is a ld.acq,
> >> + * while an atomic_mb_set is a st.rel followed by a memory barrier.
> > ...
> >> + */
> >> +#ifndef atom
