[Xen-devel] Re: Linux questions

To:	Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	[Xen-devel] Re: Linux questions
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:23:01 +0100
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date:	Thu, 06 Dec 2007 08:34:16 -0800
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<C37AF103.195D4%Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
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:	<20071204114405.GB10287@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <C37AF103.195D4%Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent:	Mutt/1.4.2.1i

> Our monotonic_clock() implementation does not reference xtime nor its
> seqlock. If it did, you would be correct.

Well it applies to other state too. There certainly is a seqlock
equivalent. If you can guarantee the interrupt changing that is 
always on the same CPU that would be safe, otherwise not.

-Andi


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] Re: Linux questions