lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] irqchip/gic-v3: use dsb(ishst) to synchronize data to smp before issuing ipi
On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 at 10:57, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On 2022-02-18 21:55, Barry Song wrote:
> > dsb(ishst) should be enough here as we only need to guarantee the
> > visibility of data to other CPUs in smp inner domain before we
> > send the ipi.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> > b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> > index 5e935d97207d..0efe1a9a9f3b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> > @@ -1211,7 +1211,7 @@ static void gic_ipi_send_mask(struct irq_data
> > *d, const struct cpumask *mask)
> > * Ensure that stores to Normal memory are visible to the
> > * other CPUs before issuing the IPI.
> > */
> > - wmb();
> > + dsb(ishst);
> >
> > for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) {
> > u64 cluster_id = MPIDR_TO_SGI_CLUSTER_ID(cpu_logical_map(cpu));
>
> I'm not opposed to that change, but I'm pretty curious whether this
> makes
> any visible difference in practice. Could you measure the effect of this
> change
> for any sort of IPI heavy workload?
>

Does this have to be a DSB ?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-02-20 14:32    [W:0.115 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site