On 05.02.2026 17:51, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>
> On 2/4/26 11:49 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 22.01.2026 17:47, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/riscv/domain.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/riscv/domain.c
>>> @@ -259,3 +259,21 @@ void sync_local_execstate(void)
>>> {
>>> /* Nothing to do -- no lazy switching */
>>> }
>>> +
>>> +void sync_vcpu_execstate(struct vcpu *v)
>>> +{
>>> + /*
>>> + * We don't support lazy switching.
>>> + *
>>> + * However the context may have been saved from a remote pCPU so we
>>> + * need a barrier to ensure it is observed before continuing.
>>> + *
>>> + * Per vcpu_context_saved(), the context can be observed when
>>> + * v->is_running is false (the caller should check it before calling
>>> + * this function).
>>> + *
>>> + * Note this is a full barrier to also prevent update of the context
>>> + * to happen before it was observed.
>>> + */
>>> + smp_mb();
>>> +}
>> Where's the counterpart of this barrier (going to be)?
>
> As it is mentioned in the comment it is invcpu_context_saved(). ~ Oleksii
You may have seen the Arm side changes to this, as I did Cc you. From that
I think you should understand the background of the question.
Jan
