Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1301659
| From | "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 22/32] s390: define __smp_xxx |
| Date | 2016-01-05 17:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qNCll-5bm-39@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <qNdGi-48u-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <qNjLL-8i4-69@gated-at.bofh.it> <qNv0t-7OE-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <qNwfU-ag-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <qNC1Y-4OF-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 04:39:37PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > On 01/05/2016 10:30 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > arch/s390/kernel/vdso.c: smp_mb(); > > > > Looking at > > Author: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> > > Date: Fri Sep 11 16:23:06 2015 +0200 > > > > s390/vdso: use correct memory barrier > > > > By definition smp_wmb only orders writes against writes. (Finish all > > previous writes, and do not start any future write). To protect the > > vdso init code against early reads on other CPUs, let's use a full > > smp_mb at the end of vdso init. As right now smp_wmb is implemented > > as full serialization, this needs no stable backport, but this change > > will be necessary if we reimplement smp_wmb. > > > > ok from hypervisor point of view, but it's also strange: > > 1. why isn't this paired with another mb somewhere? > > this seems to violate barrier pairing rules. > > 2. how does smp_mb protect against early reads on other CPUs? > > It normally does not: it orders reads from this CPU versus writes > > from same CPU. But init code does not appear to read anything. > > Maybe this is some s390 specific trick? > > > > I could not figure out the above commit. > > It was probably me misreading the code. I change a wmb into a full mb here > since I was changing the defintion of wmb to a compiler barrier. I tried to > fixup all users of wmb that really pair with other code. I assumed that there > must be some reader (as there was a wmb before) but I could not figure out > which. So I just played safe here. > > But it probably can be removed. > > > arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c: smp_mb(); > > This can go. If you have a patch, I can carry that via the kvms390 tree, > or I will spin a new patch with you as suggested-by. > > Christian I have both, will post shortly. -- MST -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH v2 22/32] s390: define __smp_xxx Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-01-04 14:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 22/32] s390: define __smp_xxx "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> - 2016-01-04 21:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 22/32] s390: define __smp_xxx Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> - 2016-01-05 09:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 22/32] s390: define __smp_xxx "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> - 2016-01-05 10:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 22/32] s390: define __smp_xxx Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> - 2016-01-05 13:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 22/32] s390: define __smp_xxx "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> - 2016-01-05 14:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 22/32] s390: define __smp_xxx Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> - 2016-01-05 15:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 22/32] s390: define __smp_xxx Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> - 2016-01-05 16:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 22/32] s390: define __smp_xxx "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> - 2016-01-05 17:10 +0100
csiph-web