[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5D3AD35E.FB77B44F@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 13:18:06 +0300
From: Jari Ruusu <jari.ruusu@...il.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 079/271] x86/atomic: Fix smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()
Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> [ Upstream commit 69d927bba39517d0980462efc051875b7f4db185 ]
>
> Recent probing at the Linux Kernel Memory Model uncovered a
> 'surprise'. Strongly ordered architectures where the atomic RmW
> primitive implies full memory ordering and
> smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() are a simple barrier() (such as x86)
> fail for:
>
> *x = 1;
> atomic_inc(u);
> smp_mb__after_atomic();
> r0 = *y;
[snip]
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/atomic.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/atomic.h
> @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ static __always_inline void arch_atomic_add(int i, atomic_t *v)
> {
> asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "addl %1,%0"
> : "+m" (v->counter)
> - : "ir" (i));
> + : "ir" (i) : "memory");
> }
>
> /**
Shouldn't those clobber contraints actually be: "memory","cc"
That is because addl subl (and other) machine instructions
actually modify the flags register too.
gcc docs say: The "cc" clobber indicates that the assembler
code modifies the flags register.
--
Jari Ruusu 4096R/8132F189 12D6 4C3A DCDA 0AA4 27BD ACDF F073 3C80 8132 F189
Powered by blists - more mailing lists