From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julien Grall Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] xen: arm: add barrier before sev in smp_spin_table_cpu_up Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:18:30 +0000 Message-ID: <53270436.6010605@linaro.org> References: <1395064315.18221.26.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <1395064352-2128-3-git-send-email-ian.campbell@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1395064352-2128-3-git-send-email-ian.campbell@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, tim@xen.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hi Ian, On 03/17/2014 01:52 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: > This ensures that the writeq to the release address has occurred. > > In reality there is a dsb() in the iounmap() (in the eventual write_pte()) but > make it explicit. There other place (see xen/arch/arm/platforms/exynos5.c) where we rely on the dsb in write_pte. I think we should move the dsb in iounmap(). > > The ARMv8 ARM recommends that sev() is usually accompanied by a dsb(), the > only other uses are in the v7 spinlock code which includes a dsb() already. Would it be better to add dsb in the sev() macro? Regards, -- Julien Grall