[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C3CE560.5050701@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:14:56 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Palfrader <peter@...frader.org>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
stable-review@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, Glauber Costa <glommer@...hat.com>,
Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 134/149] x86, paravirt: Add a global synchronization point
for pvclock
On 07/13/2010 11:21 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
> "asm volatile"'s only real meaning is that it will not get elided if it
> appears its output is unused (assuming it is reachable at all). I don't
> think you can consider it having any meaningful effects on ordering.
>
Actually, I believe volatile operations (including asm volatile) are
strictly ordered *with respect to other volatile operations*. As such I
would think we'd want to keep the "memory" clobber here, to make it
strictly ordered with regards to *all* memory operations.
As for the concept in this patch, it's obviously the right thing, but as
Linus said elsewhere it's incomplete.
Conceptually:
Acked-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>
Unfortunately I can't write the productization patch right now since I
have a plane to catch in about an hour, but if noone beats me to it I'll
to it Thursday.
-hpa
--
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