From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932928AbcFISDJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jun 2016 14:03:09 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com ([74.125.82.45]:38375 "EHLO mail-wm0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932403AbcFISDG (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jun 2016 14:03:06 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] pvclock: introduce seqcount-like API To: Andy Lutomirski References: <1465471403-49372-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20160609124317.GC2570@rkaganb.sw.ru> <20160609133529.GA5400@rkaganb.sw.ru> <8c422861-ab1e-ccdc-70e4-8517416e93f4@redhat.com> Cc: Roman Kagan , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , kvm list , Minfei Huang , Andrew Lutomirski From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <3bfffd0d-bb91-d9e3-b67b-a82be9cb82d7@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 20:03:02 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/06/2016 19:12, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 6:45 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> On 09/06/2016 15:35, Roman Kagan wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 02:47:54PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>> On 09/06/2016 14:43, Roman Kagan wrote: >>> Has it landed in any public tree? I'm unable to find any. There >>> appears to be another version of the patch on the list, so I'm confused. >> >> I'm about to push it to kvm/master. > > Sorry for being slow. I'm catching up. In its current form, I don't > like this patch. Please don't apply it. Sure, I was talking about Minfei's patches, not this one. :) Of course I need ack for this one. > The problem is that this makes two significant changes at once: > > 1. Use the new version helpers. I like that change. > > 2. Use __pvclock_read_cycles. That should be separate, and it should > come with timing numbers in the changelog. __pvclock_read_cycles is pretty much the same as the code that is being inlined. Thus the only change is that __pvclock_read_cycles is called inside the loop rather than outside, but the loop really is expected to never roll so why make a copy in the first place? I'll split the patch anyway, thanks! Paolo