linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 20/32] metag: define __smp

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: <20160104153036.GG6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Mon, 4 Jan 2016 16:30:36 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>
Cc:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-metag@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
	x86@...nel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	adi-buildroot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
	xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>,
	Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 20/32] metag: define __smp_xxx

On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 03:25:58PM +0000, James Hogan wrote:
> It is used along with the metag specific __global_lock1() (global
> voluntary lock between hw threads) whenever a write is performed, and by
> smp_mb/smp_rmb to try to catch other cases, but I've never been
> confident this fixes every single corner case, since there could be
> other places where multiple CPUs perform unsynchronised writes to the
> same memory location, and expect cache not to become incoherent at that
> location.

Ah, yuck, I thought blackfin was the only one attempting !coherent SMP.
And yes, this is bound to break in lots of places in subtle ways. We
very much assume cache coherency for SMP in generic code.

> It seemed to be sufficient to achieve stability however, and SMP on Meta
> Linux never made it into a product anyway, since the other hw thread
> tended to be used for RTOS stuff, so it didn't seem worth extending the
> generic barrier API for it.

*phew*, should we take it out then, just to be sure nobody accidentally
tries to use it then?
--
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/