* Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 03:42:38PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Another thing that is required I think is to issue a write barrier > > before CLFLUSH instruction. By my (possibly incorrect ...) reading of > > the documentation CLFLUSH does not appear to be ordered (at all), so > > it might execute before the modification to the affected memory? > > > > > > So something like: > > > > if (this_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_CLFLUSH_MONITOR)) { > > smp_wmb(); /* order CLFLUSH */ > > clflush(¤t_thread_info()->flags); > > } > > smp_wmb() is a NO-OP on x86 remember :-)
Well, it's a compiler barrier but yes - I suspect a smp_mb() might be needed - at least according to the CLFLUSH documentation it has no implicit guaranteed ordering wrt. preceding writes. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/