[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4563F158.3060209@qumranet.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 08:42:32 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, akpm@...l.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] KVM: Avoid using vmx instruction directly
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>
> Like "volatile" variables, I think "asm volatile" is probably overused.
> If you want to guarantee specific ordering of asms, it's probably better
> to add an explicit dependency between them rather than rely on asm
> volatile; this could either be a "memory" clobber, or something more
> fine-grained. For example:
>
> /* need never be instansiated; never actually referenced */
> extern int spin_sequencer;
>
> /* %0 never referenced */
> asm("take spinlock" : "+m" (spin_sequencer)...);
>
> ...
>
> /* again, %0 never referenced */
> asm("release spinlock" : "+m" (spin_sequencer)...);
>
Very interesting.
Will it work on load/store architectures? Since all memory access is
through a register, won't the constraint generate a useless register
load (and a use of the variable)?
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists