[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190629151236.GA7862@andrea>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 17:12:36 +0200
From: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Scott Wood <swood@...hat.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Deadlock via recursive wakeup via RCU with threadirqs
Hi Steve,
> As Paul stated, interrupts are synchronization points. Archs can only
> play games with ordering when dealing with entities outside the CPU
> (devices and other CPUs). But if you have assembly that has two stores,
> and an interrupt comes in, the arch must guarantee that the stores are
> done in that order as the interrupt sees it.
Hopefully I'm not derailing the conversation too much with my questions
... but I was wondering if we had any documentation (or inline comments)
elaborating on this "interrupts are synchronization points"?
Thanks,
Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists