[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1235080165.8805.48.camel@pasglop>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:49:25 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"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>,
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 Thu, 2009-02-19 at 16:06 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > So your arch_send_call_function_single_ipi etc need to ensure
> > this, right? Generic code obviously has no idea about how to
> > do it.
>
> The thing is, the most widespread way to send IPIs (x86
> non-x2apic local APIC) does not need any barriers in the generic
> code or elsewhere, because the local APIC is mapped uncached so
> it's implicitly ordered.
>
> So the right solution is to add barriers to those IPI
> implementations that need it. This means that the generic code
> should not have a barrier for IPI sending.
I agree. In fact, our current code should be fine in any case because
our writel() which will be used to generate the IPI has a sync in it
anyway for other reasons.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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