On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2012-07-05 12:10, liu ping fan wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 2012-07-05 04:18, Liu Ping Fan wrote:
>>>> Vcpu state must be set completely before receiving INIT-IPI,SIPI
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Liu Ping Fan <pingfank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> kvm.h | 1 +
>>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kvm.h b/kvm.h
>>>> index 9c7b0ea..5b3c228 100644
>>>> --- a/kvm.h
>>>> +++ b/kvm.h
>>>> @@ -198,6 +198,7 @@ static inline void cpu_synchronize_post_init(CPUArchState *env)
>>>> {
>>>> if (kvm_enabled()) {
>>>> kvm_cpu_synchronize_post_init(env);
>>>> + smp_wmb();
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> In theory, there should be no vcpu kick-off after this without some
>>> locking operations involved that imply barriers. Did you see real
>>
>> Yeah, but what if it is non-x86?
>
> The locking I'm referring to is arch independent.
>
>>> inconsistencies without this explicit one?
>
> Again: Did you see real issues or is this based on static analysis?
>
Just on static analysis
Regards,
pingfan
> Jan
>
> --
> Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE
> Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
