From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ia64: make cpu_callin_map non-volatile.
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 06:35:53 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87twusgd52.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <646392f4ff5b292164cd53c2a08cbced6b96171e.1432850232.git.tony.luck@intel.com>
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Luck, Tony <tony.luck@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> cpumask_test_cpu() doesn't take volatile, unlike the obsoleted
>> cpu_isset. The only place ia64 really cares is the spin waiting for a
>> bit; udelay() is probably a barrier but insert rmb() to be sure.
>
> Hmm. udelay() definitely should be a barrier, so this patch shouldn't
> matter. But even if it weren't, rmb() would be the wrong barrier to
> use here.
>
> rmb() is a "CPU or IO read barrier" to order reads wrt other cores or
> DMA, and needs to be paired with a wmb() on other cores (and for DMA
> it is assumed that there is sufficiently write ordering for the DMA
> itself).
>
> If it's about just other CPU's, it would be "smp_rmb()", which is
> often much cheaper (due to no IO serialization, particularly on
> POWER).
>
> But in this case it doesn't seem to be about other agents at all
> (CPU's or DMA), you literally are just looking for a compiler barrier
> to make sure the read doesn't get moved out of the loop. And the
> function for that is just "barrier()".
>
> So I'm skipping this patch, because I dont' think it changes anything
> real, and from a "let's be careful" standpoint it's actually doing the
> wrong thing.
Good point: the fact that other cpus are the ones setting the bit is a
red herring here.
Thanks,
Rusty.
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Subject: ia64: make cpu_callin_map non-volatile.
cpumask_test_cpu() doesn't take volatile, unlike the obsoleted
cpu_isset. The only place ia64 really cares is the spin waiting for a
bit; udelay() is probably a barrier but insert barrier() to be sure.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
diff --git a/arch/ia64/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/ia64/kernel/smpboot.c
index 15051e9c2c6f..629975b56608 100644
--- a/arch/ia64/kernel/smpboot.c
+++ b/arch/ia64/kernel/smpboot.c
@@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ int smp_num_siblings = 1;
volatile int ia64_cpu_to_sapicid[NR_CPUS];
EXPORT_SYMBOL(ia64_cpu_to_sapicid);
-static volatile cpumask_t cpu_callin_map;
+static cpumask_t cpu_callin_map;
struct smp_boot_data smp_boot_data __initdata;
@@ -477,6 +477,7 @@ do_boot_cpu (int sapicid, int cpu, struct task_struct *idle)
for (timeout = 0; timeout < 100000; timeout++) {
if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &cpu_callin_map))
break; /* It has booted */
+ barrier(); /* Make sure we re-read cpu_callin_map */
udelay(100);
}
Dprintk("\n");
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-01 6:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-27 1:30 [PATCH] ia64: make cpu_callin_map non-volatile Luck, Tony
2015-05-31 19:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-06-01 6:35 ` Rusty Russell [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87twusgd52.fsf@rustcorp.com.au \
--to=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.