[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130421095843.GB10683@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:58:43 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Fix AMD K6 indirect call check
* Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
>
> The AMD K6 errata check relies on timing a indirect call.
> But the way it was written it could be optimized to a direct call.
> Force gcc to actually do a indirect call and not just
> constant resolve the target address.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
> index 4a549db..11ea6f6 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
> @@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ static void __cpuinit init_amd_k6(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> */
>
> n = K6_BUG_LOOP;
> - f_vide = vide;
> + asm("" : "=g" (f_vide) : "0" (vide));
> rdtscl(d);
> while (n--)
> f_vide();
Would be useful to read in the changelog about how you found the bug:
- saw miscalculated values and figured out the reason
- saw a new warning in GCC
- saw it during review
?
Ingo
--
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