This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


[Xen-devel] Re: [patch 2/8] Implement always-locked bit ops, for memory

To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [patch 2/8] Implement always-locked bit ops, for memory shared with an SMP hypervisor.
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 07:39:13 +0200
Cc: akpm@xxxxxxxx, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ian Pratt <ian.pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 22:39:44 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608022227210.27356@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <20060803002510.634721860@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200608030725.13713.ak@xxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608022227210.27356@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.9.3
On Thursday 03 August 2006 07:32, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > As far as I can tell from this conversation there are special "Xen" 
> > > drivers that need this not the rest of the system.
> > 
> > Yes, but in general when a driver that runs on multiple architectures
> > (including IA64 btw) needs something architecture specific we usually
> > add it to asm, not add ifdefs.
> I still wonder why you are so focused on ifdefs. Why would we need those?

Because the Xen drivers will run on a couple of architectures, including
IA64 and PPC.

If IA64 or PPC didn't implement at least wrappers for the sync ops
then they would all need special ifdefs to handle this.

> > > What possible use could there be to someone else?
> > 
> > e.g. for other hypervisors or possibly for special hardware access
> > (e.g. I could imagine it being used for some kind of cluster interconnect)
> > I remember Alan was using a similar hack in his EDAC drivers because
> > it was the only way to clear ECC errors. 
> Maybe the best thing would be to have proper atomic ops in UP mode on 
> i386? The current way of just dropping the lock bit is the source of the 
> troubles.

It's a huge performance difference.
> > Just adding a single line #include for a wrapper asm-generic surely isn't
> > a undue burden for the other architectures, and it will save some
> > mess in the Xen drivers.
> Just adding a single line #include <asm/xen-bitops.h> to drivers that need 
> this functionality is not an undue burden for the drivers that support 
> Xen. They have to use special _xxx bitops anyways.

Ok it could be put into a separate file (although with a neutral name)

But you would still need to add that to IA64, PPC etc. too, so it 
would only avoid adding a single to the other architectures.


Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>