linux-kernel - Re: Q: smp.c && barriers (Was: [PATCH 1/4] generic-smp: remove single ipi fallback for smp_call_function

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902180744520.21686@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:09:21 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
cc:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Q: smp.c && barriers (Was: [PATCH 1/4] generic-smp: remove single
 ipi fallback for smp_call_function_many())

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> I agree with you both that we *should* make arch interrupt code
> do the ordering, but given the subtle lockups on some architectures
> in this new code, I didn't want to make it significantly weaker...
> 
> Though perhaps it appears that I have, if I have removed an smp_mb
> that x86 was relying on to emit an mfence to serialise the apic.

The thing is, if the architecture doesn't order IPI wrt cache coherency, 
then the "smp_mb()" doesn't really do so _either_. 

It might hide some architecture-specific implementation issue, of course, 
so random amounts of "smp_mb()"s sprinkled around might well make some 
architecture "work", but it's in no way guaranteed. A smp_mb() does not 
guarantee that some separate IPI network is ordered - that may well take 
some random machine-specific IO cycle.

That said, at least on x86, taking an interrupt should be a serializing 
event, so there should be no reason for anything on the receiving side. 
The _sending_ side might need to make sure that there is serialization 
when generating the IPI (so that the IPI cannot happen while the writes 
are still in some per-CPU write buffer and haven't become part of the 
cache coherency domain).

And at least on x86 it's actually pretty hard to generate out-of-order 
accesses to begin with (_regardless_ of any issues external to the CPU). 
You have to work at it, and use a WC memory area, and I'm pretty sure we 
use UC for the apic accesses.

			Linus

--
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/