[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56E6AE14.2060909@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 13:27:00 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Cc: joro@...tes.org, bp@...en8.de, gleb@...nel.org,
alex.williamson@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, wei@...hat.com,
sherry.hurwitz@....com
Subject: Re: [PART1 RFC v2 06/10] svm: Add interrupt injection via AVIC
On 14/03/2016 10:41, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + kvm_lapic_set_vector(vec, avic_get_bk_page_entry(svm,
>>>>>> APIC_IRR));
>>>>
>>>> (I think that smp_mb here would make sense, even though we're fine now
>>>> thanks to re-checking vcpu->mode in kvm_vcpu_kick.
>>>
>>> Right, though only a smp_mb__after_atomic() is required (which is a
>>> compiler barrier). It is similarly required in vmx.
>>
>> True, kvm_lapic_set_vector uses a lock prefix.
>>
>> (I thought it behaves like atomic_set, which would require MFENCE for
>> correct ordering here ... I don't like smp_mb__after_atomic much
>> because of the discrepancy on some atomic operations.)
>>
>
> So, should i just use smb_mb() in this case?
You should use smp_mb__after_atomic().
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists