Re: Jump Label initialization

[David Daney]

On 09/29/2011 09:45 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 09/29/2011 05:04 AM, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > s390 does not have the early() variant since it didn't need it. On
> > pre-SMP we probably don't need stop_machine() so creating
> > arch_jump_label_transform_early() by leaving out stop_machine()
> > and patching the code directly should be fine.
>
> Well, it occurs to me that if you're using jump_label_enable() very
> early, then it will be using the full arch_jump_label_transform()
> anyway.  While the stop_machine(), locking, etc that the full version
> does is redundant in a pre-SMP environment, it shouldn't hurt, so
> perhaps there's no need for an _early variant at all.

You need a way to guarantee that the code you are modifying is not in 
the instruction cache of the off-line CPUs.

On our (Cavium) SMP MIPS systems, these off-line CPUs are most likely 
spinning in architecture specific smp startup code somewhere in the 
kernel image.  If this code happened to be adjacent to something the 
arch_jump_label_transform_early() would touch, we could have a problem.

The solution is fairly simple, just invalidate the instruction cache 
immediately upon leaving the spinning loop.

David Daney
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/