Re: [RFC PATCH 2/8] jump label v4 - x86: Introduce generic jumppatching without stop_machine

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

* Arjan van de Ven (arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:59:30 -0500
> Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Yeah, so in the latest patch, I updated it to use int3 even if
> > len == 1. :-)
> > 
> 
> 
> int3 is not making a difference for your case; there is no guarantee
> that the other processor even sees the "int3 inbetween state" at all;
> if it's not safe without int3 then it won't be safe with int3 either.

What Masami means is that he updated his patch to use the int3+IPI
broadcast scheme.

Therefore, the CPUs not seeing the int3 inbetween state will be forced
to issue a serializing instruction while the int3 is in place anyway.

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
> 
> -- 
> Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
> For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
> visit http://www.lesswatts.org

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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/