[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z-5vAThgDL9gts35@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 13:20:33 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip v2] x86/idle: Work around LLVM assembler bug with
MONITOR and MWAIT insn
* Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com> wrote:
> LLVM assembler is not able to assemble correct forms of MONITOR
> and MWAIT instructions with explicit operands:
>
> error: invalid operand for instruction
> monitor %rax,%ecx,%edx
> ^~~~
>
> Use instruction mnemonics with implicit operands to
> work around this issue.
>
> Signed-off-by: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
> Fixes: cd3b85b27542 ("x86/idle: Use MONITOR and MWAIT mnemonics in <asm/mwait.h>")
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
So I've zapped cd3b85b27542 instead - let's re-try it again and
see if there's any code generation tradeoffs vs. the byte encodings?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists