Re: [PATCH] xen: Use wmb instead of rmb in xen_evtchn_do_upcall().

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 June 2008 17:57, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>   
> > Nick Piggin wrote:
> >     
> > > On Tuesday 10 June 2008 17:35, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> > >       
> > > > This patch is ported one from 534:77db69c38249 of linux-2.6.18-xen.hg.
> > > > Use wmb instead of rmb to enforce ordering between
> > > > evtchn_upcall_pending and evtchn_pending_sel stores
> > > > in xen_evtchn_do_upcall().
> > > >         
> > > There are a whole load of places in the kernel that should be using
> > > smp_ variants of memory barriers. This seemed to me like one of them,
> > > but I could be wrong.
> > >       
> > No, it needs to be an unconditional barrier.  This is synchronizing with
> > the hypervisor - even if the kernel is compiled UP, the SMP hypervisor
> > may be testing/setting the events pending bits from another (physical) cpu.
> >     
>
> OK. What you *really* want is smp_*mb_even_if_compiled_for_UP() ;)
> That is, a small set of primitives that are compiled with CONFIG_SMP
> (and given some xxx_ prefix to distinguish).
>   

We already have a set of sync_* for atomic ops which are always locked.

> IO barriers are probably the best thing you can use for the moment.
>   

It is conceptually similar, I suppose.

      J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/