[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902180913110.21686@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:14:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
"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>,
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, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> an off-list comment pointed out this piece of information as
> well:
>
> http://www.sandpile.org/ia32/coherent.htm
>
> A WRMSR to one of the x2APIC MSRs (0000_0800h...0000_0BFFh) is
> not guaranteed to be serializing.
>
> So i suspect we should just enclose it in smp_mb() pairs to make
> sure it's a full barrier in both directions?
Why would we care about "both directions"?
I think putting an sfence _before_ the wrmsr (and not even all of them -
just put it in front of the "send IPI" sequence) should be fine. Any other
ordering sounds like just unnecessary overhead to me.
We do want this to be low-overhead, even if we probably don't care _that_
much.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists