On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 01:52:33PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 3/29/19 8:54 AM, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> >
> >> Of course, this would force the compiler to actually compute the
> >> offset, which would slow things down. I have no idea whether this
> >> would be better or worse than just using the "memory" clobber.
> > Just adding the "memory" clobber to clear_bit() changes sizes of 5
> > kernel functions (the three mentioned above, plus hub_activate() and
> > native_send_call_func_ipi()) by a small margin.
> > This probably means the performance impact of this clobber is
> > negligible in this case.
>
> I would agree with that.
>
> Could you perhaps verify whether or not any of the above functions
> contains a currently manifest bug?
>
> Note: the atomic versions of these functions obviously need to have
> "volatile" and the clobber anyway, as they are by definition barriers
> and moving memory operations around them would be a very serious error.
The atomic functions that return void don't need to order anything except
the input and output arguments. The oddness with clear_bit() is that the
memory changed isn't necessarily the quantity referenced by the argument,
if the number of bits specified is large.
So (for example) atomic_inc() does not need a "memory" clobber, right?
Thanx, Paul
