[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 6/7] xen/evtch: use smp barriers for user event ring
On 08/02/2021 10:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 08.02.2021 11:23, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 08/02/2021 09:50, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 08.02.2021 10:44, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>> On 06/02/2021 10:49, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>> The ring buffer for user events is used in the local system only, so
>>>>> smp barriers are fine for ensuring consistency.
>>>>> Reported-by: Andrew Cooper <>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <>
>>>> These need to be virt_* to not break in UP builds (on non-x86).
>>> Initially I though so, too, but isn't the sole vCPU of such a
>>> VM getting re-scheduled to a different pCPU in the hypervisor
>>> an implied barrier anyway?
>> Yes, but that isn't relevant to why UP builds break.
>> smp_*() degrade to compiler barriers in UP builds, and while that's
>> mostly fine for x86 read/write, its not fine for ARM barriers.
> Hmm, I may not know enough of Arm's memory model - are you saying
> Arm CPUs aren't even self-coherent, i.e. later operations (e.g.
> the consuming of ring contents) won't observe earlier ones (the
> updating of ring contents) when only a single physical CPU is
> involved in all of this? (I did mention the hypervisor level
> context switch simply because that's the only way multiple CPUs
> can get involved.)

In this case, no - see my later reply.  I'd mistaken the two ends of
this ring.  As they're both inside the same guest, its fine.

For cases such as the xenstore/console ring, the semantics required
really are SMP, even if the guest is built UP.  These cases really will
break when smp_rmb() etc degrade to just a compiler barrier on
architectures with weaker semantics than x86.


 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-08 11:59    [W:0.102 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site