[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wi3LZ_4OGAMhvgO0JSTp-eEPOGp+siq1nJNLY1JAxdP5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:06:04 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -tip] x86/percpu: Use C for arch_raw_cpu_ptr()
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 at 10:21, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > A compiler that were to rematerializes an inline asm (instead of
> > spilling) would be a bad joke. That's not an optimization, that's just
> > a crazy bad compiler with a code generation bug.
>
> But that is what the compiler does without volatile.
Do you actually have a real case of that, or are basing it purely off
insane documentation?
Because remat of inline asm really _is_ insane.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists