[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C3DFD12.3050700@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:08:18 -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>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 134/149] x86, paravirt: Add a global synchronization point
for pvclock
[Adding H.J. to the Cc: list]
On 07/14/2010 10:57 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>>
>> I/O ports, for example.
>>
>
> Yes, it looks like they should have memory barriers if we want them to
> be ordered with respect to normal writes; afaict "asm volatile" has
> never had strict ordering wrt memory ops.
>
Noone has talked about strict ordering between volatiles and
(non-volatile) memory ops in general. I have been talking about
volatile to volatile ordering, and I thought I'd been very clear about that.
H.J., we're having a debate about the actual semantics of "volatile",
especially "asm volatile" in gcc. In particular, I believe that
volatile operations should not be possible to reorder with regards to
each other, and the kernel depends on that fact.
-hpa
P.S: gcc 4.4 seems to handle "const volatile" incorrectly, probably by
applying CSE to those values.
--
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