>>> On 15.06.17 at 19:21, wrote:
> On 14/06/17 10:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 13.06.17 at 17:25, wrote:
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
>>> +Atomic operations in Xen
>>> +
>>> +
>>> +Data structures in Xen memory which can be accessed by multiple CPUs
>>> +at the same time need
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> Stefano Stabellini 06/15/17 2:27 AM >>>
> >On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> Stefano Stabellini 06/14/17 8:45 PM >>>
> >> >On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >> > +What ACCESS_ONCE does *not* guarantee though is this access is
Hi Jan,
thanks for spending your time on this mind boggling exercise!
On 14/06/17 10:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.06.17 at 17:25, wrote:
>> as mentioned in my previous mail, I consider this more of a discussion
>> base that an actual patch. I am by no means an expert in this area, so
>> par
>>> Stefano Stabellini 06/15/17 2:27 AM >>>
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> Stefano Stabellini 06/14/17 8:45 PM >>>
>> >On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> > +What ACCESS_ONCE does *not* guarantee though is this access is done in
>> >> > a
>> >> > +single instruction, s
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> Stefano Stabellini 06/14/17 8:45 PM >>>
> >On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> > +What ACCESS_ONCE does *not* guarantee though is this access is done in a
> >> > +single instruction, so complex or non-native or unaligned data types are
> >> >
>>> Stefano Stabellini 06/14/17 8:45 PM >>>
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > +What ACCESS_ONCE does *not* guarantee though is this access is done in a
>> > +single instruction, so complex or non-native or unaligned data types are
>> > +not guaranteed to be atomic. If for instance coun
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > +What ACCESS_ONCE does *not* guarantee though is this access is done in a
> > +single instruction, so complex or non-native or unaligned data types are
> > +not guaranteed to be atomic. If for instance counter would be a 64-bit
> > value
> > +on a 32-bit
>>> On 13.06.17 at 17:25, wrote:
> as mentioned in my previous mail, I consider this more of a discussion
> base that an actual patch. I am by no means an expert in this area, so
> part of this exercise here is to write down my understanding and see it
> corrected by more knowledgable people ;-)
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Andre Przywara wrote:
> Recently there were some discussions about the nature and guarantees of
> the atomic primitives that Xen provides.
> This README.atomic file tries to document our expectations in those
> functions and macros.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara
> ---
> H
Recently there were some discussions about the nature and guarantees of
the atomic primitives that Xen provides.
This README.atomic file tries to document our expectations in those
functions and macros.
Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara
---
Hi,
as mentioned in my previous mail, I consider this more
10 matches
Mail list logo
