Re: Q: smp.c && barriers (Was: [PATCH 1/4] generic-smp: remove single ipi fallback for smp_call_function_many())

[Nick Piggin]

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.

--
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/