Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755630AbdLOKLI (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Dec 2017 05:11:08 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com ([74.125.82.66]:38734 "EHLO mail-wm0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753874AbdLOKLC (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Dec 2017 05:11:02 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovblETgFkoEDTAkd2Calxgtz85jzxDSp7TGVSM2AObI2XpKoPnzREBDARrGCZ0iLPgIvGnTjQ== Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:10:53 +0100 From: Christoffer Dall To: Marc Zyngier Cc: Jia He , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jia He Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm/arm64: don't set vtimer->cnt_ctl in kvm_arch_timer_handler Message-ID: <20171215101053.GZ910@cbox> References: <1513148407-2611-1-git-send-email-hejianet@gmail.com> <20171213091803.GQ910@cbox> <20171214130954.GV910@cbox> <5615f3e1-756e-0537-f0b6-20ae8626ac87@gmail.com> <20171214154518.GX910@cbox> <519f0e33-4419-68be-32b4-11bb5e19cf17@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <519f0e33-4419-68be-32b4-11bb5e19cf17@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1254 Lines: 35 On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 09:09:05AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 15/12/17 02:27, Jia He wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > >> @@ -367,6 +368,7 @@ static void vtimer_save_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > >> > >> /* Disable the virtual timer */ > >> write_sysreg_el0(0, cntv_ctl); > >> + isb(); > > My only concern is whether this isb() is required here? > > Sorryif this is a stupid question.I understand little about arm arch > > memory barrier. But seems isb will flush all the instruction prefetch.Do > > you think if an timer interrupt irq arrives, arm will use the previous > > instruction prefetch? > > > This barrier has little to do with prefetch. It just guarantees that the > code after the isb() is now running with a disabled virtual timer. > Otherwise, a CPU can freely reorder the write_sysreg() until the next > context synchronization event. > > An interrupt coming between the write and the barrier will also act as a > context synchronization event. For more details, see the ARMv8 ARM (the > glossary has a section on the concept). > So since an ISB doesn't guarantee that the timer will actually be disabled, is it a waste of energy to have it, or should we keep it as a best effort kind of thing? Thanks, -Christoffer