On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:18:33AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 02:28:35PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > I am not seeing a sync there, but I really have to defer to the
> > maintainers on this one. I could easily have missed one.
>
> So x86 implies a full barrier for everything that changes the CPL; and
> some form of implied ordering seems a must if you change the privilege
> level unless you tag every single load/store with the priv level at that
> time, which seems the more expensive option.
And it is entirely possible that there is some similar operation
somewhere in the powerpc entry/exit code. I would not trust myself
to recognize it, though.
> So I suspect the typical implementation will flush all load/stores,
> change the effective priv level and continue.
>
> This can of course be implemented at a pure per CPU ordering (RCpc),
> which would be in line with the rest of Power, in which case you do
> indeed need an explicit sync to make it visible to other CPUs.
>
> But yes, if Michael or Ben could clarify this it would be good.
>
> Back then I talked to Ralf about what MIPS says on this, and MIPS arch
> spec is entirely quiet on this, it allows implementations full freedom
> IIRC.
:-) ;-) ;-)
> </ramble>
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
