| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
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
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home