* 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(&current_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/

Reply via email to