From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756420AbYKDWZ1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2008 17:25:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753694AbYKDWZN (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2008 17:25:13 -0500 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:16098 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753000AbYKDWZM (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2008 17:25:12 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,545,1220252400"; d="scan'208";a="70959862" Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 14:25:10 -0800 From: Suresh Siddha To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , "Siddha, Suresh B" , "jens.axboe@oracle.com" , "paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au" , "torvalds@linux-foundation.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Mallick, Asit K" , venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com Subject: Re: [patch] generic-ipi: fix the smp_mb() placement Message-ID: <20081104222509.GA12358@linux-os.sc.intel.com> References: <20081030185322.GE17822@elte.hu> <20081030202322.GM30573@linux-os.sc.intel.com> <490A9337.6090504@goop.org> <20081031093924.GG30317@elte.hu> <490AE820.1010301@goop.org> <20081031165334.GA10468@linux-os.sc.intel.com> <490B6AE8.3040700@goop.org> <20081103101736.GI13671@elte.hu> <490F8DC9.9000005@goop.org> <20081104091956.GI23790@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081104091956.GI23790@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 02:19:56AM -0700, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > > Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> ok - so that makes it a v2.6.28 item i guess. > >> > > > > The case Suresh is talking about was a fix to Xen itself, rather > > than on the kernel side, so it doesn't need to be a .28 issue on > > Xen's account. > > ok - but still the portion of the fix that strengthens barriers looks > obvious to have and there's little downside that i can see. > > Suresh, you might want to split the patch(es) in two: get the barrier > strengthening changes into v2.6.28 (to fix the x2apic bug), while the > aspects that _weaken_ barriers can wait for v2.6.29. > > With that it would be a 100% safe change for v2.6.28-rc4. Ok. I just posted three patches (including the x86 specific change). [patch 1/3] generic-ipi: add smp_mb() before sending the IPI [patch 2/3] x86: Add smp_mb() before sending INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTOR [patch 3/3] generic-ipi: fix the smp_mb() usage First two patches are safe to go into v2.6.28. Third patch can wait for v2.6.29. thanks, suresh