[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fc65322b-902e-6589-f64c-62be5abdb093@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 09:46:17 -0500
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/paravirt: Don't make vcpu_is_preempted() a
callee-save function
On 02/14/2017 04:39 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 05:34:01PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> It is the address of &steal_time that will exceed the 32-bit limit.
> That seems extremely unlikely. That would mean we have more than 4G
> worth of per-cpu variables declared in the kernel.
I have some doubt about if the compiler is able to properly use
RIP-relative addressing for this. Anyway, it seems like constraints
aren't allowed for asm() when not in the function context, at least for
the the compiler that I am using (4.8.5). So it is a moot point.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists