WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: fix variable_test_bit() asmconstraints

To: "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: fix variable_test_bit() asmconstraints
From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:51:26 +0000
Delivery-date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:51:07 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C4001818.15017%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <47DA6E53.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx> <C4001818.15017%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 14.03.08 12:55 >>>
>On 14/3/08 11:23, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I just sent a (much bigger, see below) patch to the same effect to the
>> x86 Linux maintainers - in Xen, all the operations modifying bits do
>> have "memory" clobbers, so it's just the test_bit() constraint that's
>> wrong.
>
>Yes, I agree that fix is needed, although it would be consistent with other
>asm statements in that file to use a memory clobbers instead.

But memory clobber aren't nice when you want the compiler to optimize
well.

>> However, I wonder whether the non-atomic ops aren't limiting things too
>> much by having "memory" clobbers, they would much better be restricted
>> to indicate just the changing memory location. This, however, would
>> probably require some additional consideration given that Xen (other
>> than Linux) isn't using -fno-strict-aliasing. Furthermore, these
>> non-atomic operations, according to their comments, can be re-ordered,
>> which contradicts the use of __asm__ __volatile__ (but note that
>> removing this would probably require extra precautions to meet strict
>> aliasing rules).
>
>Xen *does* use -fno-strict-aliasing. I'm afraid I don't understand why

Oh, okay, I just grepped xen/ for it, but it lives in Config.mk...

>memory-clobber would be needed for the atomic ops, but a dummy memory
>operand would suffice for non-atomic ops. I used memory clobber everywhere

Atomic ops imply a barrier (otherwise the compiler can defeat the
purpose of the atomic operation). The non-atomic ones don't need a
dummy operand, but one that precisely describes the place in memory
that changes.

>because at least I'm certain that works. Same for 'asm volatile'. We've had
>various problems with the bitops before, and I just want the darn things to
>work!

Okay, if you feel that way then I guess I won't propose changing it,
at the expense of slightly worse code generation.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel