Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 17 Jun 2022 09:28:00 +0200
From:   Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc:     "'oliver.upton@linux.dev'" <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
        Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Peter Shier <pshier@google.com>,
        Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>,
        Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com>,
        Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com>,
        Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>,
        Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@google.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: KVM: Handle compiler optimizations in ucall
Message-ID: <20220617072800.cvqb4wmafxdi3knq@gator>
References: <3e73cb07968d4c92b797781b037c2d45@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <20220615185706.1099208-1-rananta@google.com>
 <20220616120232.ctkekviusrozqpru@gator>
 <33ca91aeb5254831a88e187ff8d9a2c2@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <20220616162557.55bopzfa6glusuh5@gator>
 <7b1040c48bc9b2986798322c336660ab@linux.dev>
 <2ec9ecbfb13d422ab6cda355ff011c9f@AcuMS.aculab.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2ec9ecbfb13d422ab6cda355ff011c9f@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 09:54:16PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: oliver.upton@linux.dev
> > Sent: 16 June 2022 19:45
> 
> > 
> > June 16, 2022 11:48 AM, "David Laight" <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
> > > No wonder I was confused.
> > > It's not surprising the compiler optimises it all away.
> > >
> > > It doesn't seem right to be 'abusing' WRITE_ONCE() here.
> > > Just adding barrier() should be enough and much more descriptive.
> > 
> > I had the same thought, although I do not believe barrier() is sufficient
> > on its own. barrier_data() with a pointer to uc passed through
> > is required to keep clang from eliminating the dead store.
> 
> A barrier() (full memory clobber) ought to be stronger than
> the partial one than barrier_data() generates.
> 
> I can't quite decide whether you need a barrier() both sides
> of the 'magic write'.
> Plausibly the compiler could discard the on-stack data
> after the barrier() and before the 'magic write'.
> 
> Certainly putting the 'magic write' inside a asm block
> that has a memory clobber is a more correct solution.

Indeed, since the magic write is actually a guest MMIO write, then
it should be using writeq().

Thanks,
drew