[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160113185644-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 19:00:13 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86,asm: Re-work smp_store_mb()
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 05:53:20PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 06:42:48PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Oh, I think this means we need a "cc" clobber.
>
> Btw, does your microbenchmark do it too?
Yes - I fixed it now, but it did not affect the result.
We'd need some code where gcc carries flags around though.
> Because, the "cc" clobber should cause additional handling of flags,
> depending on the context. It won't matter if the context doesn't need
> rFLAGS handling in the benchmark but if we start using LOCK; ADD in the
> kernel, I can imagine some places where mb() is used and rFLAGS are
> live, causing gcc to either reorder code or stash them away...
It will reorder code but not necessarily for the worse :)
Best I can do, I will add cc clobber to kernel and see whether
binary size grows.
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> Boris.
>
> ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists