Re: [PATCH 6/8] i386: bitops: Don't mark memory as clobbered unnecessarily

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > __test_and_change_bit is one that you could remove the memory clobber
> > > > from.
> > >
> > > Yes, for the atomic versions we don't care if we're asking gcc to
> > > generate trashy code (even though I'd have wanted to only disallow
> > > problematic optimizations -- ones involving the passed bit-string
> > > address -- there, and allow other memory references to be optimized
> > > as and how the compiler feels like it) because the atomic variants
> > > are slow anyway and we probably want to be extra-safe there.
> > >
> > > But for the non-atomic variants, it does make sense to remove the
> > > memory clobber (and the unneeded __asm__ __volatile__ that another
> > > patch did -- for the non-atomic variants, again).
> >
> > No. It has nothing to do with atomicity and all to do with ordering.
>
>
> The memory clobber, or the volatile asm? There's more than one variable
> here ... but still, I don't think either affects _ordering_ in any
> _direct_ way.

The clobber which you remove with this patch.


> > For example test_bit, clear_bit, set_bit, etc are all atomic but none
> > place any restrictions on ordering.
>
>
> In that case we need to update comments in include/asm-i386/bitops.h

Hmm... yeah it looks like they could be reordered. I think?


> > __test_and_change_bit has no restriction on ordering, so as long as
> > the correct operands are clobbered, a "memory" clobber to enforce a
> > compiler barrier is not needed.
>
>
> But why even for the other operations? Consider (current code of)
> test_and_set_bit():
>
> static inline int test_and_set_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long * addr)
> {
> 	int oldbit;
> 	__asm__ __volatile__( LOCK_PREFIX
> 		"btsl %2,%1\n\tsbbl %0,%0"
> 		:"=r" (oldbit),"+m" (ADDR)
> 		:"Ir" (nr) : "memory");
>
> 	return oldbit;
> }
>
> The only memory reference in there is to the passed address, it will
> be modified, yes, but that's been made obvious to gcc in the asm
> already. So why are we marking all of memory as clobbered, is the
> question. (I just read Jeremy's latest reply, but I don't see how
> or why the memory clobber helps that case either -- does a memory
> clobber affect how gcc would order / reorder code?)

Of course, because then the compiler can't assume anything about
the contents of memory after the operation.

  #define barrier() __asm__ __volatile__("": : :"memory")

A memory clobber is equivalent to a compiler barrier.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/