[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C3E2806.1050900@goop.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:11:34 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Palfrader <peter@...frader.org>,
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 07/14/2010 01:50 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> invlpg, in the general case, definitely needs a memory clobber even if
> volatiles are ordered, since it needs to be ordered with regards to
> non-volatile memory operations.
>
Yes. I'd say write_crX should need that too, since they can they can
have a variety global effects on how memory addressing works (from tlb
flush to switching pagetable formats).
> Note that memory clobbers don't by themselves enforce ordering since
> they don't prevent the ordering of memory clobbers with respect to each
> other.
>
Hm. Well we do *definitely* rely on that. I guess technically we'd
need at least a memory input on the asm to be ordered with respect to a
memory clobber. But that doesn't seem to have been an issue (or perhaps
its mixed up with the secret semantics of asm volatile).
J
--
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