[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181130152852.456ce379@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 15:28:52 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, julia@...com, jeyu@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] x86/static_call: Add inline static call
implementation for x86-64
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:18:33 -0800
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> Or we could replace that IPI with x86's bona fide serialize-all-cpus
> primitive and then we can just retry instead of emulating. It's a
> piece of cake -- we just trigger an SMI :) /me runs away.
I must have fallen on my head one too many times, because I really like
the idea of synchronizing all the CPUs with an SMI! (If that's even
possible). The IPI's that are sent are only to force smp_mb() on all
CPUs. Which should be something an SMI could do.
/me runs after Andy
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists