From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752449AbbBRKuN (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2015 05:50:13 -0500 Received: from smtp.citrix.com ([66.165.176.89]:1219 "EHLO SMTP.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751628AbbBRKuM convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2015 05:50:12 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,600,1418083200"; d="scan'208";a="226731715" Message-ID: <54E46E61.8030805@citrix.com> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 10:50:09 +0000 From: Andrew Cooper User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Juergen Gross , David Vrabel , , , , Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 02/13] xen: anchor linear p2m list in shared info structure References: <1424242326-26611-1-git-send-email-jgross@suse.com> <1424242326-26611-3-git-send-email-jgross@suse.com> <54E46A33.9030401@citrix.com> <54E46CB1.5010702@suse.com> In-Reply-To: <54E46CB1.5010702@suse.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-DLP: MIA2 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 18/02/15 10:42, Juergen Gross wrote: > >>> /* Set up p2m_top to point to the domain-builder provided p2m >>> pages */ >>> @@ -469,8 +473,10 @@ static pte_t *alloc_p2m_pmd(unsigned long addr, >>> pte_t *pte_pg) >>> >>> ptechk = lookup_address(vaddr, &level); >>> if (ptechk == pte_pg) { >>> + HYPERVISOR_shared_info->arch.p2m_generation++; >>> set_pmd(pmdp, >>> __pmd(__pa(pte_newpg[i]) | _KERNPG_TABLE)); >>> + HYPERVISOR_shared_info->arch.p2m_generation++; >> >> Do these increments of p2m_generation need to be atomic? > > Hmm, they are done under lock. I don't think the compiler is allowed to > reorder the writes to p2m_generation across set_pmd(). They do need smp_wmb() to guarantee that the increment is visible before the update occurs, just as the toolstack will need smp_rmb() to read. They also need to be protected from concurrent update inside the kernel, for which a lock should appear to suffice. ~Andrew