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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20090218174714.GA19396@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:47:14 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
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())


* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> 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.

yeah, you are right, making sure prior stores become visible 
should be the only worry here.

	Ingo
--
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/