[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Q: smp.c && barriers (Was: [PATCH 1/4] generic-smp: remove single ipi fallback for smp_call_function_many())
    On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 05:47:20PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
    > > It might hide some architecture-specific implementation issue, of course,
    > > so random amounts of "smp_mb()"s sprinkled around might well make some
    > > architecture "work", but it's in no way guaranteed. A smp_mb() does not
    > > guarantee that some separate IPI network is ordered - that may well take
    > > some random machine-specific IO cycle.
    > >
    > > That said, at least on x86, taking an interrupt should be a serializing
    > > event, so there should be no reason for anything on the receiving side.
    > > The _sending_ side might need to make sure that there is serialization
    > > when generating the IPI (so that the IPI cannot happen while the writes
    > > are still in some per-CPU write buffer and haven't become part of the
    > > cache coherency domain).
    > >
    > > And at least on x86 it's actually pretty hard to generate out-of-order
    > > accesses to begin with (_regardless_ of any issues external to the CPU).
    > > You have to work at it, and use a WC memory area, and I'm pretty sure we
    > > use UC for the apic accesses.
    > On powerpc, I suspect an smp_mb() on the sender would be useful... it
    > mostly depends how the IPI is generated but in most case it's going to
    > be an MMIO write, ie non-cached write which isn't ordered vs. any
    > previous cached store except using a full sync (which is what smp_mb()
    > does).

    So your arch_send_call_function_single_ipi etc need to ensure this,
    right? Generic code obviously has no idea about how to do it.

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-02-19 14:13    [W:0.027 / U:0.580 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site