[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzeri_owd61Y+8EO9OjO5XJxZhHHrU=evN8moaiR+atUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 13:10:31 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Matthew Whitehead <tedheadster@...il.com>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] x86/xen: Add a Xen-specific sync_core() implementation
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>
> Because, if so, we should maybe serialize whenever we migrate a
> process to a different CPU.
The intel docs are bad on this issue.
Technically what we do could fall under the "cross-modifying code"
case, where one CPU does the write, and then we run it on another CPU.
And no, we do *not* do a serializing instruction before returning to
user space. Sure, we might do an iret (which is serializing), but we
equally well might be doing a systret (which is not).
Honestly, I think Intel should clean up their documentation.
> (We *definitely* need to flush the store buffer when migrating,
There is no such thing as flushing the store buffer.
But we do end up doing a memory barrier which gives you the required
semantics. That's not a problem. Those operations are fast. The
serializing instructions are not.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists