From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com>
Subject: Linux questions
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 11:24:35 +0000
Message-ID: <4753F583.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

1) Is there a particular reason Jeremy's sched_clock() variant isn't being
used in linux-2.6.18-hg? Specifically, are there any known downsides to
that approach?

2) What is the reason for the inconsistent use of rmb() vs. barrier() in
time-xen.c? It would seem to me that rmb() should be sufficient in all
cases.

3) Why is it that x86-64's __smp_call_function_single(), just like native,
uses cpu_relax() in its wait-for-response loops, while __smp_call_function(=
)
as well as i386's smp_call_function() use barrier(), other than native?

Thanks, Jan