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
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
