> 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

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?

Reply via email to