From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751985Ab0GPEtx (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:49:53 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:56120 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751278Ab0GPEtw (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:49:52 -0400 Message-ID: <4C3FE4A4.3000902@zytor.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:48:36 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100621 Fedora/3.0.5-1.fc13 Thunderbird/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Zachary Amsden CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Avi Kivity , Linus Torvalds , Peter Palfrader , Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, stable-review@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Glauber Costa , Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: [patch 134/149] x86, paravirt: Add a global synchronization point for pvclock References: <20100707124731.GJ15122@anguilla.noreply.org> <4C359D5A.1050906@redhat.com> <20100713102350.GW15122@anguilla.noreply.org> <4C3C68C8.4060409@redhat.com> <20100713141902.GB15122@anguilla.noreply.org> <4C3C8CE5.1080705@redhat.com> <20100713162207.GC15122@anguilla.noreply.org> <4C3C9589.4090602@redhat.com> <4C3C96EC.8060901@redhat.com> <4C3C9839.4090404@redhat.com> <20100713172526.GE15122@anguilla.noreply.org> <4C3CAE8F.10900@goop.org> <4C3CE560.5050701@zytor.com> <4C3CFB8B.1090804@goop.org> <4C3DF1BE.2070404@goop.org> <4C3DF447.1000801@zytor.com> <4C3DF519.6030406@goop.org> <4C3DF7AF.7010402@zytor.com> <4C3DFA88.5020007@goop.org> <4C3E1B13.5030304@redhat.com> <4C3E20B3.6020007@goop.org> <4C3E21D1.3010207@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4C3E21D1.3010207@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/14/2010 01:45 PM, Zachary Amsden wrote: > That's the kind of bug I think Linus is talking about. We've been > expecting volatile to work that way for over a decade, by my > recollection, and if it doesn't, there is going to be a lot of broken code. > > Shouldn't we at least get a compiler switch to force the volatile > behavior? I'd suggest it default to conservative. At this point, it looks like there is no reason to be alarmed. The documentation actually contains a statement about volatiles not being mutually reordered across sequence points, and since asm is a statement (rather than an expression) it is always surrounded by sequence points. I have filed a gcc ticket to ask for clarification. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.