[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <568BE3B9.8020901@de.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:39:37 +0100
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 22/32] s390: define __smp_xxx
On 01/05/2016 10:30 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> arch/s390/kernel/vdso.c: smp_mb();
>
> Looking at
> Author: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
> Date: Fri Sep 11 16:23:06 2015 +0200
>
> s390/vdso: use correct memory barrier
>
> By definition smp_wmb only orders writes against writes. (Finish all
> previous writes, and do not start any future write). To protect the
> vdso init code against early reads on other CPUs, let's use a full
> smp_mb at the end of vdso init. As right now smp_wmb is implemented
> as full serialization, this needs no stable backport, but this change
> will be necessary if we reimplement smp_wmb.
>
> ok from hypervisor point of view, but it's also strange:
> 1. why isn't this paired with another mb somewhere?
> this seems to violate barrier pairing rules.
> 2. how does smp_mb protect against early reads on other CPUs?
> It normally does not: it orders reads from this CPU versus writes
> from same CPU. But init code does not appear to read anything.
> Maybe this is some s390 specific trick?
>
> I could not figure out the above commit.
It was probably me misreading the code. I change a wmb into a full mb here
since I was changing the defintion of wmb to a compiler barrier. I tried to
fixup all users of wmb that really pair with other code. I assumed that there
must be some reader (as there was a wmb before) but I could not figure out
which. So I just played safe here.
But it probably can be removed.
> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c: smp_mb();
This can go. If you have a patch, I can carry that via the kvms390 tree,
or I will spin a new patch with you as suggested-by.
Christian
--
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