Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] xen/evtch: use smp barriers for user event ring
To:     Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc:     Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
References: <20210206104932.29064-1-jgross@suse.com>
 <20210206104932.29064-7-jgross@suse.com>
 <2d354cad-3413-a416-0bc1-01d03e1f41cd@citrix.com>
 <dfa40af0-2706-2540-c59a-6593c1c0553a@suse.com>
 <e68f76a5-27ce-a6d8-88a3-1e8fa1c30659@citrix.com>
From:   Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Message-ID: <def49076-f943-9418-86b0-2aafbd0bf7de@suse.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Feb 2021 11:36:17 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e68f76a5-27ce-a6d8-88a3-1e8fa1c30659@citrix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 08.02.2021 11:23, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 08/02/2021 09:50, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 08.02.2021 10:44, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 06/02/2021 10:49, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> The ring buffer for user events is used in the local system only, so
>>>> smp barriers are fine for ensuring consistency.
>>>>
>>>> Reported-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
>>> These need to be virt_* to not break in UP builds (on non-x86).
>> Initially I though so, too, but isn't the sole vCPU of such a
>> VM getting re-scheduled to a different pCPU in the hypervisor
>> an implied barrier anyway?
> 
> Yes, but that isn't relevant to why UP builds break.
> 
> smp_*() degrade to compiler barriers in UP builds, and while that's
> mostly fine for x86 read/write, its not fine for ARM barriers.

Hmm, I may not know enough of Arm's memory model - are you saying
Arm CPUs aren't even self-coherent, i.e. later operations (e.g.
the consuming of ring contents) won't observe earlier ones (the
updating of ring contents) when only a single physical CPU is
involved in all of this? (I did mention the hypervisor level
context switch simply because that's the only way multiple CPUs
can get involved.)

Jan