[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081030172515.GW31673@kernel.dk>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:25:15 +0100
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Cc: "paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com" <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
"nickpiggin@...oo.com.au" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Mallick, Asit K" <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] generic-ipi: fix the smp_mb() placement
On Thu, Oct 30 2008, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:20:30AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > @@ -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().
>
> No. We want the ipi receiver to see the new consistent data rather
> than possible old consistent data.
Oh right, we need visibility here and not just store ordering.
>
> And on x86, smp_wmb() is a simple barrier() (in !CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE)
> and which doesn't do much in this case.
>
> on x86 mfence (smp_mb()) will ensure that msr based APIC (x2apic)
> accesses (ipi) will be visible only after the memory operations before
> smp_mb() are made visible.
OK, I'm convinced. I'll queue up the patch, thanks!
--
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