H. Peter Anvin wrote:
quoted text
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>>>   
>>> I suppose, though I would be inclined to put the barriers in the
>>> wrmsr macro itself to act as documentation. 
>>
>>
>> yeah I meant like this:
>>
>> static inline void native_write_msr(unsigned int msr,
>>                      unsigned low, unsigned high)
>> {
>>     barrier();
>>     asm volatile("wrmsr" : : "c" (msr), "a"(low), "d" (high));
>>     barrier();
>> }
>>
>> or in the same in the thing that calls this.
>>
>
> Actually, I believe the barrier(); before is actually incorrect, since 
> it would affect the wrmsr() register arguments rather than the wrmsr 
> instruction itself.

How so?  What kind of failure do think might occur?  Some effect on how 
the wrmsr arguments are evaluated?

barrier() is specifically a compiler optimisation barrier, so the 
barrier before would prevent the compiler from moving anything logically 
before the wrmsr to afterwards.

That said, making the wrmsr itself a memory clobber may be simpler 
understand with a comment, rather than separate barriers...

    J
--
unsubscribe notice
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/