lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86-64: espfix for 64-bit mode *PROTOTYPE*
From
Date
Race condition (although with x86 being globally ordered, it probably can't actually happen.) The bitmask is probably the way to go.

On April 21, 2014 6:28:12 PM PDT, Andrew Lutomirski <amluto@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 6:14 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
>> I wanted to avoid the "another cpu made this allocation, now I have
>to free" crap, but I also didn't want to grab the lock if there was no
>work needed.
>
>I guess you also want to avoid bouncing all these cachelines around on
>boot on bit multicore machines.
>
>I'd advocate using the bitmap approach or simplifying the existing
>code. For example:
>
>+ for (n = 0; n < ESPFIX_PUD_CLONES; n++) {
>+ pud = ACCESS_ONCE(pud_p[n]);
>+ if (!pud_present(pud))
>+ return false;
>+ }
>
>I don't see why that needs to be a loop. How can one clone exist but
>not the others?
>
>--Andy

--
Sent from my mobile phone. Please pardon brevity and lack of formatting.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-04-22 04:01    [W:0.334 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site