[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] Linux questions

On 3/12/07 11:40, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> rmb() is more powerful than barrier(), not the converse.
> Oh, sorry, I mixed barrier() with mb(). So the proposal would then simply
> be the other way around (the use of locked operations or fence instructions
> on x86 is really unnecessary as long as WC memory or non-temporal stores
> don't need to be taken into consideration).

Then the implementation of rmb() should be equivalent to barrier(). The code
in time-xen.c is implemented to the interface definitions of barrier() and
rmb() -- the former is used just where instruction ordering is important;
the latter where dynamic execution order matters too.

 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.