From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
To: <mingo@elte.hu>, <tglx@linutronix.de>, <gcosta@redhat.com>,
<hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@goop.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: __force_order usage on x86's CRn accesses
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 10:04:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FF2D1DA020000780008D433@nat28.tlf.novell.com> (raw)
Pretty soon after the introduction of this via "x86: unify paravirt
parts of system.h" Jeremy had posted a patch to correct the
(reversed in direction of access) constraints using that auxiliary
variable. What happened to that change? Was it dropped for a
reason?
Furthermore, the addition of these constraints happened
without any real explanation - the code comment that was added
doesn't really help understand why "volatile" isn't sufficient here.
Next, I also saw it being suggested somewhere to replace the
static definition of the variable (causing an instance to appear
everywhere any of the referencing inline function being used)
by an extern one. That also never got carried out, causing
about two dozen pointless instances of this variable to be
scattered around, likely consuming cache bandwidth here and
there.
Now, rather than exporting an auxiliary variable like this, how
about using an existing, rarely referenced (at least in affected
contexts) but already exported one instead?
empty_zero_page, __supported_pte_mask, x86_platform, or
high_memory might be candidates.
Finally (and this is because I lack the explanation why the
artificial constraint is needed in the first place), why is it that
clts() doesn't need one too?
Thanks, Jan
next reply other threads:[~2012-07-03 9:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-03 9:04 Jan Beulich [this message]
[not found] <4FF2D6AB020000780008D460@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
2012-07-03 9:55 ` Glauber Costa
2012-07-03 10:08 ` Jan Beulich
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=4FF2D1DA020000780008D433@nat28.tlf.novell.com \
--to=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=gcosta@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®