[PATCH 3/4] x86,asm: Re-work smp_store_mb()

Andy Lutomirski
2016-01-12T20:30:46Z

On 01/12/2016 09:20 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:57 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at
redhat.com> wrote:
>> #ifdef xchgrz
>> /* same as xchg but poking at gcc red zone */
>> #define barrier() do { int ret; asm volatile ("xchgl %0,
-4(%%" SP ");": "=r"(ret) :: "memory",
"cc"); } while (0)
>> #endif
>
> That's not safe in general. gcc might be using its redzone, so doing
> xchg into it is unsafe.
>
> But..
>
>> Is this a good way to test it?
>
> .. it's fine for some basic testing. It doesn't show any subtle
> interactions (ie some operations may have different dynamic behavior
> when the write buffers are busy etc), but as a baseline for "how fast
> can things go" the stupid raw loop is fine. And while the xchg into
> the redzoen wouldn't be acceptable as a real implementation, for
> timing testing it's likely fine (ie you aren't hitting the problem
it
> can cause).

I recall reading somewhere that lock addl $0, 32(%rsp) or so (maybe even
64) was better because it avoided stomping on very-likely-to-be-hot
write buffers.

--Andy