On Wednesday 25 April 2007 20:13:34 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> +
> >> +  do {
> >> +          state_time = state->state_entry_time;
> >> +          barrier();
> >>     
> >
> > Should be likely rmb
> 
> We discussed this, and decided that it wasn't necessary.  The state is
> always updated by the current CPU, so if it changes under our feet it
> will be because we were preempted, and so that should shoot down any
> speculated reads.

Then the barrier shouldn't be needed at all? 

Anyways needs comments

-Andi
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Reply via email to