>>> On 25.01.18 at 17:09, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: > On 25/01/18 15:57, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 24.01.18 at 14:12, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> @@ -1743,6 +1744,34 @@ void context_switch(struct vcpu *prev, struct vcpu >>> *next) >>> } >>> >>> ctxt_switch_levelling(next); >>> + >>> + if ( opt_ibpb && !is_idle_domain(nextd) ) >> Is the idle domain check here really useful? > > Yes, because as you pointed out in v9, the outer condition isn't > sufficient to exclude nextd being idle.
True, but then again - what's wrong with an idle vCPU making it into the block? It'll be a pointless barrier that you issue, but no other harm afaics. Remember that I complained about the missing check only because of the chosen variable naming, but you've renamed the variables in question, so I don't see why you've also added the extra condition. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
