Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86: Add support for the clwb instruction

[Ross Zwisler]

On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 20:46 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:40:00PM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > Yep, it's weird, I know.  :)
> 
> But sure, saving opcode space, makes sense to me.
> 
> Btw, I'd still be interested about this:
> 
> > +static inline void clwb(volatile void *__p)
> > +{
> > +     alternative_io_2(".byte " __stringify(NOP_DS_PREFIX) "; clflush %P0",
> 
> Any particular reason for using 0x3e as a prefix to have the insns be
> the same size or is it simply because CLFLUSH can stomach it?

Ah, sorry, I was still responding to your first mail.  :)  Response
copied here to save searching:

        Essentially we need one additional byte at the beginning of the
        clflush so that we can flip it into a clflushopt by changing that byte
        into a 0x66 prefix.  Two options are to either insert a 1 byte
        ASM_NOP1, or to add a 1 byte NOP_DS_PREFIX.  Both have no functional
        effect with the plain clflush, but I've been told that executing a
        clflush + prefix should be faster than executing a clflush + NOP.

I agree, this is useful info - I'll add it to the patch comments for v2.

Thank you for the feedback.

- Ross

--
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/