On 19.03.2020 13:06, Jürgen Groß wrote: > On 17.03.20 14:56, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 13.03.2020 14:06, Juergen Gross wrote: >>> + cpumask_raise_softirq(&cpu_online_map, RCU_SOFTIRQ); >> >> Isn't there another barrier needed ahead of this, to order it wrt >> the set? > > No, I don't think so. cpumask_raise_softirq() needs to have appropriate > ordering semantics as otherwise the softirq pending bit wouldn't be > guaranteed to be seen by softirq processing.
You may have a point here, but I had given my comment after looking at cpumask_raise_softirq() and not finding any such barrier there. Oh, actually - set_bit() and test_and_set_bit() differ in their barrier characteristics; I wasn't aware of this. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
