[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0f8ae71f59cd4b80ac93b9e1aa3b2428@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 02:59:14 +0000
From: linmiaohe <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
CC: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"rkrcmar@...hat.com" <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
"wanpengli@...cent.com" <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
"jmattson@...gle.com" <jmattson@...gle.com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: apic: reuse smp_wmb() in kvm_make_request()
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 11:47:02AM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> linmiaohe <linmiaohe@...wei.com> writes:
>>
>> > From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
>> >
>> > There is already an smp_mb() barrier in kvm_make_request(). We reuse
>> > it here.
>> > + /*
>> > + * Make sure pending_events is visible before sending
>> > + * the request.
>> > + * There is already an smp_wmb() in kvm_make_request(),
>> > + * we reuse that barrier here.
>> > + */
>>
>> Let me suggest an alternative wording,
>>
>> "kvm_make_request() provides smp_wmb() so pending_events changes are
>> guaranteed to be visible"
>>
>> But there is nothing wrong with yours, it's just longer than it could
>> be
>> :-)
Thanks for your alternative wording. It looks much better.
>I usually lean in favor of more comments, but in thise case I'd vote to drop the comment altogether. There are lots of places that rely on the
>smp_wmb() in kvm_make_request() without a comment, e.g. the cases for APIC_DM_STARTUP and APIC_DM_REMRD in this same switch, kvm_inject_nmi(), etc... One might wonder what makes INIT special.
>
>And on the flip side, APIC_DM_STARTUP is a good example of when a
>smp_wmb()/smp_rmb() is needed and commented correctly (though calling out the exactly location of the other half would be helpful).
Yeh, I think the comment should be dropped too. :)
Thanks to both for review! I would send v2.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists