Re: [patch 134/149] x86, paravirt: Add a global synchronization point for pvclock

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

On 07/13/2010 03:14 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Actually, I believe volatile operations (including asm volatile) are
> strictly ordered *with respect to other volatile operations*. 

The documentation makes no reference to that property; in fact it
suggests it is outright not true:

    Note that even a volatile `asm' instruction can be moved relative to
    other
    code, including across jump instructions.  For example, on many targets
    there is a system register which can be set to control the rounding
    mode of floating point operations.  You might try setting it with a
    volatile `asm', like this PowerPC example:

                asm volatile("mtfsf 255,%0" : : "f" (fpenv));
                sum = x + y;

    This will not work reliably, as the compiler may move the addition
    back before the volatile `asm'.  To make it work you need to add an
    artificial dependency to the `asm' referencing a variable in the
    code you don't want moved, for example:

             asm volatile ("mtfsf 255,%1" : "=X"(sum): "f"(fpenv));
             sum = x + y;

    Similarly, you can't expect a sequence of volatile `asm'
    instructions to remain perfectly consecutive.
    [...]
    An `asm' instruction without any output operands will be treated
    identically to a volatile `asm' instruction.

>  As such I
> would think we'd want to keep the "memory" clobber here, to make it
> strictly ordered with regards to *all* memory operations.
>   

That would keep its overall effect consistent.

    J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/