On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 03:26 -0800, Nick Piggin wrote: > -- > Simplify the barriers in generic remote function call interrupt code. > > Firstly, just unconditionally take the lock and check the list in the > generic_call_function_single_interrupt IPI handler. As we've just taken > an IPI here, the chances are fairly high that there will be work on the > list for us, so do the locking unconditionally. This removes the tricky > lockless list_empty check and dubious barriers. The change looks bigger > than it is because it is just removing an outer loop. > > Secondly, clarify architecture specific IPI locking rules. Generic code > has no tools to impose any sane ordering on IPIs if they go outside > normal cache coherency, ergo the arch code must make them appear to > obey cache coherency as a "memory operation" to initiate an IPI, and > a "memory operation" to receive one. This way at least they can be > reasoned about in generic code, and smp_mb used to provide ordering. > > The combination of these two changes means that explict barriers can > be taken out of queue handling for the single case -- shared data is > explicitly locked, and ipi ordering must conform to that, so no > barriers needed. An extra barrier is needed in the many handler, so > as to ensure we load the list element after the IPI is received. > > Does any architecture actually needs barriers? For the initiator I > could see it, but for the handler I would be surprised. The other > thing we could do for simplicity is just to require that a full > barrier is required before generating an IPI, and after receiving an > IPI. We can't just do that in generic code without auditing > architectures. There have been subtle hangs here on some archs in > the past. x2apic register reads/writes don't have serializing semantics, as opposed to uncached xapic accesses, which are inherently serializing. With this patch, we need to fix the corresponding x2apic IPI operations. I will take a look at it. thanks, suresh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
