Re: [PATCH] x86: work around clang IAS bug referencing __force_order

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 02:09:33PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:37:01AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 07:28:57PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 3:11 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >> > + *
> > > >> > + * Clang sometimes fails to kill the reference to the dummy variable, so
> > > >> > + * provide an actual copy.
> > > >>
> > > >> Can that compiler be fixed instead?
> > > >
> > > > I don't think so. The logic in the compiler whether to emit an
> > > 
> > > Forget that I asked. Heat induced brain damaged.
> > > 
> > > > I'd much rather remove all of __force_order.
> > > 
> > > Right.
> > > 
> > > > Not sure about the comment in arch/x86/include/asm/special_insns.h
> > > > either; smells fishy like a bug with a compiler from a long time ago.
> > > > It looks like it was introduced in:
> > > > commit d3ca901f94b32 ("x86: unify paravirt parts of system.h")
> > > > Lore has this thread:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/4755A809.4050305@xxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > > Patch 4: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/11967844071346-git-send-email-gcosta@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > > > It seems like there was a discussion about %cr8, but no one asked
> > > > "what's going on here with __force_order, is that right?"
> > > 
> > > Correct and the changelog is uselss in this regard.
> > > 
> > > > Quick boot test of the below works for me, though I should probably
> > > > test hosting a virtualized guest since d3ca901f94b32 refers to
> > > > paravirt.  Thoughts?
> > > 
> > > Let me ask (hopefully) useful questions this time:
> > > 
> > >   Is a compiler allowed to reorder two 'asm volatile()'?
> > > 
> > >   Are there compilers (gcc >= 4.9 or other supported ones) which do that?
> > 
> > I would hope that the answer to both of these questions is "no"!
> > 
> > But I freely confess that I have been disappointed before on this sort
> > of thing.  :-/
> > 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> Ok, I found this, so gcc developers consider re-ordering volatile asm
> wrt each other a bug at least.
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602

Whew!!!  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul