[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131017094318.GC18765@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:43:19 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.prabhu@...aro.org>,
Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...wei.com>,
Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] arm64: introduce basic aarch64 instruction
decoding helpers
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 06:14:50PM +0100, Jiang Liu wrote:
> On 10/16/2013 11:36 PM, Jiang Liu wrote:
> > On 10/16/2013 06:51 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >> Take care here:
> >>
> >> - This doesn't guarantee that CPUs exclusively see new_insn (they
> >> may see old_insn, even after patching)
> > Good point. Still need some synchronization mechanism lighter than
> > stop_machine(). How about kick_all_cpus_sync(), which should be lighter
> > than stop_machine()?
> For jump label, x86 uses three smp_call_function() to replace a
> stop_machine(). Seems it's valuable for us to use just one
> kick_all_cpus_sync() to avoid a stop_machine().
Yes, the exception return after handling the IPI from kick_all_cpus_sync
should be enough to synchronise the pipeline, providing that all cache
maintenance by the CPU writing the new instructions has completed (if you're
using flush_icache_range then you're fine).
Will
--
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