[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161206092520.GX3092@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 10:25:20 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Matthew Whitehead <tedheadster@...il.com>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
x86@...nel.org, xen-devel <Xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Juergen Gross <JGross@...e.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 4/4] x86/asm: Rewrite sync_core() to use
IRET-to-self
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 01:46:37AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > + asm volatile (
> > + "pushfl\n\t"
> > + "pushl %%cs\n\t"
> > + "pushl $1f\n\t"
> > + "iret\n\t"
> > + "1:"
> > + : "+r" (__sp) : : "cc", "memory");
>
> I don't thing EFLAGS (i.e. "cc") gets modified anywhere here. And
> the memory clobber would perhaps better be pulled out into an
> explicit barrier() invocation (making it more obvious what it's needed
> for)?
EVerything that implies a memory barrier (and I think serializing
instructions do that) also imply a compiler barrier.
Not doing the memory clobber gets you inconsistency wrt everything else.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists