[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: don't write_tsc() non-zero values on CPUs updating only the lower 32 bits
- To: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:40:00 +0100
- Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "winston.l.wang" <winston.l.wang@xxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:40:57 -0700
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=pPk/IZuixqrpomMGcRb4HYf4Mhyo2V5amXncc3NfE9zHn6Wc3yY0jSBVhjm/k2J16B iApzb5W9w78dtf4JFLgkub3+eZ+31PYvsq9/5lu4XfYGPDRFCcRT4ZnNeAvOnGyR87LW 3MYTpyeW2VsWEcsF7li/sEXgGCb6IrSnz2wnc=
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
- Thread-index: Acv7N/FIlU2XI/RwPEmicQ0VEud++A==
- Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: don't write_tsc() non-zero values on CPUs updating only the lower 32 bits
On 14/04/2011 23:41, "Dan Magenheimer" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Yeah, if we want to continue to try avoiding write_tsc() on
>> TSC_RELIABLE
>> then we should assert !TSC_RELIABLE on the write_tsc() path in
>> cstate_tsc_restore().
>
> Agreed. In fact, maybe it should be asserted in write_tsc?
We still write_tsc on CPU physical hot-add.
-- Keir
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
