[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z9AwF5hwF0ES9Grl@andrea>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 13:44:07 +0100
From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
To: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>
Cc: Andy Chiu <andybnac@...il.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bjorn@...osinc.com,
puranjay12@...il.com, alexghiti@...osinc.com,
yongxuan.wang@...ive.com, greentime.hu@...ive.com,
nick.hu@...ive.com, nylon.chen@...ive.com, tommy.wu@...ive.com,
eric.lin@...ive.com, viccent.chen@...ive.com, zong.li@...ive.com,
samuel.holland@...ive.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] riscv: add a data fence for CMODX in the kernel
mode
> FWIW, the for S-IMSIC the write is already writel(), so we'll have the
> text patching and IPI ordered. Regardless, there's more than one flavor
> of IPI on RISC-V!
AFAIU, this writel() is intended to order the insertion (and the initialization)
of the CSD object before the MMIO writes; so, the "right fix" seems to turn the
"other flavors" into using a writel() or providing a similar ordering guarantee.
As a bonus, such change should address/fix all current and future occurrences of
the message-passing scenario in question (the patch addressed the occurrence in
flush_icache_all(), but there appears to be a similar one in flush_icache_mm()).
Or am I misunderstanding your previous comment?
Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists