[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081030072029.GK31673@kernel.dk>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:20:30 +0100
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@...e.hu,
jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
asit.k.mallick@...el.com
Subject: Re: [patch] generic-ipi: fix the smp_mb() placement
On Wed, Oct 29 2008, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> While looking at some other issue recently, we encountered this smp_mb()
> placement issue. x86 specific code also needs some similar fixes. Patch for
> that will follow soon.
>
> Please review the appended generic-ipi fix.
Looks good, nice debugging! A few comments below.
>
> thanks,
> suresh
> ---
>
> From: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
> Subject: generic-ipi: fix the smp_mb() placement
>
> smp_mb() is needed (to make the memory operations visible globally) before
> sending the ipi on the sender and the receiver (on Alpha atleast) needs
> smp_read_barrier_depends() in the handler before reading the call_single_queue
> list in a lock-free fashion.
>
> On x86, x2apic mode register accesses for sending IPI's don't have serializing
> semantics. So the need for smp_mb() before sending the IPI becomes more
> critical in x2apic mode.
>
> Remove the unnecessary smp_mb() in csd_flag_wait(), as the presence of that
> smp_mb() doesn't mean anything on the sender, when the ipi receiver is not
> doing any thing special (like memory fence) after clearing the CSD_FLAG_WAIT.
>
> Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
> index f362a85..75c8dde 100644
> --- a/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -51,10 +51,6 @@ static void csd_flag_wait(struct call_single_data *data)
> {
> /* Wait for response */
> do {
> - /*
> - * We need to see the flags store in the IPI handler
> - */
> - smp_mb();
> if (!(data->flags & CSD_FLAG_WAIT))
> break;
> cpu_relax();
> @@ -76,6 +72,11 @@ static void generic_exec_single(int cpu, struct call_single_data *data)
> list_add_tail(&data->list, &dst->list);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dst->lock, flags);
>
> + /*
> + * Make the list addition visible before sending the ipi.
> + */
> + smp_mb();
> +
> if (ipi)
> arch_send_call_function_single_ipi(cpu);
We can downgrade this to a smp_wmb().
>
> @@ -157,7 +158,7 @@ void generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt(void)
> * Need to see other stores to list head for checking whether
> * list is empty without holding q->lock
> */
> - smp_mb();
> + smp_read_barrier_depends();
> while (!list_empty(&q->list)) {
> unsigned int data_flags;
>
> @@ -191,7 +192,7 @@ void generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt(void)
> /*
> * See comment on outer loop
> */
> - smp_mb();
> + smp_read_barrier_depends();
> }
> }
>
> @@ -370,6 +371,11 @@ int smp_call_function_mask(cpumask_t mask, void (*func)(void *), void *info,
> list_add_tail_rcu(&data->csd.list, &call_function_queue);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&call_function_lock, flags);
>
> + /*
> + * Make the list addition visible before sending the ipi.
> + */
> + smp_mb();
> +
> /* Send a message to all CPUs in the map */
> arch_send_call_function_ipi(mask);
Ditto
--
Jens Axboe
--
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