[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87pm791zev.ffs@tglx>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2023 14:07:20 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Arjan van de Veen <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>,
"Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>,
Piotr Gorski <lucjan.lucjanov@...il.com>,
Usama Arif <usama.arif@...edance.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
linux-csky@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Sabin Rapan <sabrapan@...zon.com>,
"Michael Kelley (LINUX)" <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [patch v3 08/36] x86/smpboot: Split up native_cpu_up() into
separate phases and document them
On Tue, May 09 2023 at 12:04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 09:43:39PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> + /*
>> + * Sync point with wait_cpu_callin(). The AP doesn't wait here
>> + * but just sets the bit to let the controlling CPU (BSP) know that
>> + * it's got this far.
>> + */
>> smp_callin();
>>
>> - /* otherwise gcc will move up smp_processor_id before the cpu_init */
>> + /* Otherwise gcc will move up smp_processor_id() before cpu_init() */
>> barrier();
>
> Not to the detriment of this patch, but this barrier() and it's comment
> seem weird vs smp_callin(). That function ends with an atomic bitop (it
> has to, at the very least it must not be weaker than store-release) but
> also has an explicit wmb() to order setup vs CPU_STARTING.
>
> (arguably that should be a full fence *AND* get a comment)
>
> There is no way the smp_processor_id() referred to in this comment can
> land before cpu_init() even without the barrier().
Right. Let me clean that up.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists