Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 15:01:13 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: x86: Inconsistent xAPIC synchronization in arch_irq_work_raise?
Message-ID: <20140121140113.GL30183@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <52DE6FCE.2050708@siemens.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <52DE6FCE.2050708@siemens.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 02:02:06PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> while trying to plug a race in the CPU hotplug code on xAPIC systems, I
> was analyzing IPI transmission patterns. The handlers in
> arch/x86/include/asm/ipi.h first wait for ICR, then send. In contrast,
> arch_irq_work_raise sends the self-IPI directly and then waits. This
> looks inconsistent. Is it intended?
> 
> BTW, the races are in wakeup_secondary_cpu_via_init and
> wakeup_secondary_cpu_via_nmi (lacking IRQ disable around ICR accesses).
> There we also send first, then wait for completion. But I guess that is
> due to the code originally only being used during boot. Will send fixes
> for those once the sync pattern is clear to me.

Could be I had no clue what I was doing and copy/pasted the code until
it compiled and ran.

In fact, I've got no clue what an ICR is.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/