From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
Michael Neuling <michael.neuling@au1.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Ensure gcc doesn't move around cache flushing in __patch_instruction
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 18:00:08 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180517230007.GC17342@gate.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <18a52794a30857146396dd6023abf17179db53d0.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 08:30:27AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-05-17 at 14:23 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 01:06:10PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > The current asm statement in __patch_instruction() for the cache flushes
> > > doesn't have a "volatile" statement and no memory clobber. That means
> > > gcc can potentially move it around (or move the store done by put_user
> > > past the flush).
> >
> > volatile is completely superfluous here, except maybe as documentation:
> > any asm without outputs is always volatile.
>
> I wasn't aware of that. I was drilled early on to always stick volatile
> in my asm statements if they have any form of side effect :-)
If an asm without output was not marked automatically as having another
side effect, every such asm would be immediately deleted ;-)
Adding volatile as documentation for side effects can be good; it just
doesn't do much (nothing, in fact) for asms without output as far as
the compiler is concerned.
> > (And the memory clobber does not prevent the compiler from moving the
> > asm around, or duplicating it, etc., and neither does the volatile).
>
> It prevents load/stores from moving around doesn't it ? I wanted to
> make sure the store of the instruction doesn't move in/pass the asm. If
> you say that's not needed then ignore the patch.
No, it's fine here, and you want either that or put exactly the memory
you are touching in a constraint (probably overkill here). I just
wanted to say that a "memory" clobber does nothing more than say the
asm touches some unspecified memory; there is no magic other meaning
to it. Your patch is correct, just the "volatile" part isn't needed,
and the explanation was a bit cargo-culty ;-)
Segher
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-17 23:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-17 3:06 [PATCH] powerpc: Ensure gcc doesn't move around cache flushing in __patch_instruction Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2018-05-17 19:23 ` Segher Boessenkool
2018-05-17 22:30 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2018-05-17 23:00 ` Segher Boessenkool [this message]
2019-01-31 13:20 ` Christophe Leroy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180517230007.GC17342@gate.crashing.org \
--to=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=michael.neuling@au1.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).