Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Hm, I was more wondering about simple compiler reordering. Does the
>> relative order of setting and reading cpu_tlbstate.state, active_mm and
>> the mm->cpu_vm_mask matter?
>>
>
> Hmm, perhaps a barrier between state and active_mm might be a good idea.
> Setting
On Thursday 05 April 2007 23:00:22 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > The interrupts can only happen when the other CPU is already lazy
> > and enter_lazy_tlb would be a nop then. The flushers itself are
> > synchronized by the page_table_lock or the mm semaphore.
> >
> > Against
Andi Kleen wrote:
> The interrupts can only happen when the other CPU is already lazy
> and enter_lazy_tlb would be a nop then. The flushers itself are
> synchronized by the page_table_lock or the mm semaphore.
>
> Against switch_mm it tries to protect with ordering.
>
> wmb()s are not needed on
On Thursday 05 April 2007 21:44:10 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What protects the cpu_tlbstate? I see in i386/kernel/smp.c that its
> always used in a non-preemptable area, but what prevents races with
> interrupts? For example, what prevents leave_mm() called via the
> flush_tlb_all
On Thursday 05 April 2007 21:44:10 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Hi,
What protects the cpu_tlbstate? I see in i386/kernel/smp.c that its
always used in a non-preemptable area, but what prevents races with
interrupts? For example, what prevents leave_mm() called via the
flush_tlb_all IPI from
Andi Kleen wrote:
The interrupts can only happen when the other CPU is already lazy
and enter_lazy_tlb would be a nop then. The flushers itself are
synchronized by the page_table_lock or the mm semaphore.
Against switch_mm it tries to protect with ordering.
wmb()s are not needed on x86 (ok
On Thursday 05 April 2007 23:00:22 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Andi Kleen wrote:
The interrupts can only happen when the other CPU is already lazy
and enter_lazy_tlb would be a nop then. The flushers itself are
synchronized by the page_table_lock or the mm semaphore.
Against switch_mm
Andi Kleen wrote:
Hm, I was more wondering about simple compiler reordering. Does the
relative order of setting and reading cpu_tlbstate.state, active_mm and
the mm-cpu_vm_mask matter?
Hmm, perhaps a barrier between state and active_mm might be a good idea.
Setting active_mm after
8 matches
Mail list logo
