[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C3F5972.2030600@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:54:42 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix ordering constraints on crX read/writes
On 07/15/2010 07:34 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 07/14/2010 06:29 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Yes, it will definitely NOT be pruned. I'm going to file a gcc documentation request to see if any of this is actually needed, though. There may also be a need for gcc to handle *inbound* general memory constraints.
>>
>
> You mean "depends on all prior memory updates"? We have been relying on
> "memory" to do that (barrier(), for example), but it would be nice to
> explicitly confirm that's OK, or get something which is guaranteed to be OK.
>
No, we haven't. You're misunderstanding what a "memory" clobber does.
A clobber affects the output side only, but doesn't inherently provide
ordering on the input side. Apparently this is implicit in "asm
volatile", which is a very important property.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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