[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:35:22 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
cc: Shaohua Li <shli@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kernel-team@...com,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
lenb@...nel.org, fenghua.yu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: serialize LVTT and TSC_DEADLINE write
Andi,
On Tue, 8 Sep 2015, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Hmm, I didn't mean mfence can't serialize the instructions. For a true
> > IO, a serialization can't guarantee device finishes the IO, we generally
> > read some safe IO registers to wait IO finish. I completely don't know
> > if this case fits here though.
>
> Sorry for the late answer. We (Intel) analyzed this case in detail and
> can confirm that the following sequence
>
> 1. Memory-mapped write to LVT Timer Register, setting bits 18:17 to 10b.
> 23. MFENCE.
> 4. WRMSR to the IA32_TSC_DEADLINE MSR the desired deadline.
>
> has the same effect as the loop algorithm described in the SDM on all Intel
> CPUs. So it's fine to use MFENCE here.
Thanks for the confirmation. It would have been really surprising if
that wouldn't work.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists