From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [patch 21/26] Xen-paravirt_ops: Use the hvc console infrastructure for Xen console Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 03:41:23 -0800 Message-ID: <20070316034123.9de92632.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20070316095851.GB301@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Keir Fraser Cc: Ingo Molnar , Keir Fraser , virtualization@lists.osdl.org, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Chris Wright , Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 10:31:49 +0000 Keir Fraser wrote: > On 16/3/07 09:58, "Ingo Molnar" wrote: > > >> These mb()'s are pretty standard for lock-free producer/consumer > >> rings. Write descriptor /then/ write the updated producer. Read the > >> producer /then/ read any descriptors revealed by this new producer > >> value. > > > > then use rmb()/wmb(). Rarely does a ring protocol truly need mb(). > > It's needed for writing data /after/ reading the consumer index that shows > you have space to write. Looking through xenbus_comms.c I think all the > barriers are correct except there is a spurious extra mb() in xb_read(), > where there is a later rmb() which is sufficient by itself. All the others > have a purpose. > If Ingo couldn't work this out from reading the code then nobody else can, and we have a maintainability problem which can only be solved with adequate commenting.