[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1192749449.7367.51.camel@pasglop>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:17:29 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] synchronize_irq needs a barrier
On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 15:52 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> > The barrier would guarantee that ioc->active (and in fact the write to
> > the chip too above) are globally visible
>
> No, it doesn't really guarantee that.
>
> The thing is, there is no such thing as "globally visible".
>
> There is a "ordering of visibility wrt CPU's", but it's not global, it's
> quite potentially per-CPU. So a barrier on one CPU doesn't guarantee
> anything at all without a barrier on the *other* CPU.
>
> That said, the interrupt handling itself contains various barriers on the
> CPU's that receive interrupts, thanks to the spinlocking. But I do agree
> with Herbert that adding a "smb_mb()" is certainly in no way "obviously
> correct", because it doesn't talk about what the other side does wrt
> barriers and that word in memory.
I agree and you can see that in fact, we don't have enough barrier on
the other side since spin_unlock doesn't prevent subsequent loads from
crossing a previous store...
I wonder if that's worth trying to address, adding a barrier in
handle_IRQ_event for example, or we can continue ignoring the barrier
and let some drivers do their own fixes in fancy ways.
Ben.
-
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