lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: sync_set_bit() vs set_bit() -- what's the difference?
On 08/27/2014 09:50 AM, Dexuan Cui wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jan Beulich
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 15:39 PM
>>>>> On 27.08.14 at 09:30, <decui@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> I'm curious about the difference. :-)
>>>
>>> sync_set_bit() is only used in drivers/hv/ and drivers/xen/ while set_bit()
>>> is used in all other places. What makes hv/xen special?
>>
>> I guess this would really want to be used by anything communicating
>> with a hypervisor or a remote driver: set_bit() gets its LOCK prefix
>> discarded when the local kernel determines it runs on a single CPU
>> only. Obviously having knowledge of the CPU count inside a VM does
>> not imply anything about the number of CPUs available to the host,
>> i.e. stripping LOCK prefixes in that case would be unsafe.
>>
>> Jan
>
> Thank you, Juergen and Jan for your quick answers!
>
> I didn't realize LOCK_PREFIX is "" for UP. :-)

Even worse: it is patched away dynamically when you disable all but one
processor and activated again when a second processor is becoming
active.


Juergen



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-08-27 10:01    [W:0.039 / U:0.744 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site