- On Dec 4, 2020, at 3:17 AM, Nadav Amit nadav.a...@gmail.com wrote:
> I am not very familiar with membarrier, but here are my 2 cents while trying
> to answer your questions.
>
>> On Dec 3, 2020, at 9:26 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> @@ -496,6 +497,8 @@ void switch_mm_irqs_off(struct mm_str
- On Dec 4, 2020, at 12:26 AM, Andy Lutomirski l...@kernel.org wrote:
> The core scheduler isn't a great place for
> membarrier_mm_sync_core_before_usermode() -- the core scheduler doesn't
> actually know whether we are lazy. With the old code, if a CPU is
> running a membarrier-registered ta
I am not very familiar with membarrier, but here are my 2 cents while trying
to answer your questions.
> On Dec 3, 2020, at 9:26 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> @@ -496,6 +497,8 @@ void switch_mm_irqs_off(struct mm_struct *prev, struct
> mm_struct *next,
>* from one thread in a proc
Excerpts from Andy Lutomirski's message of December 4, 2020 3:26 pm:
> The core scheduler isn't a great place for
> membarrier_mm_sync_core_before_usermode() -- the core scheduler doesn't
> actually know whether we are lazy. With the old code, if a CPU is
> running a membarrier-registered task, go
The core scheduler isn't a great place for
membarrier_mm_sync_core_before_usermode() -- the core scheduler doesn't
actually know whether we are lazy. With the old code, if a CPU is
running a membarrier-registered task, goes idle, gets unlazied via a TLB
shootdown IPI, and switches back to the memb
