MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230303231133.1486085-1-eranian@google.com> <20230306120106.GE1267364@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAKwvOdnRvd5KK01awAyeyt5S36TPPW4_8Z6YL1r4gB-pBrHTbg@mail.gmail.com> <20230307113545.GB2017917@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20230307113545.GB2017917@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 7 Mar 2023 09:48:33 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whX6g3QPA_g_ovsig8CsSHRS-vTWkdn9GCUCAZY=XPtCw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/resctrl: avoid compiler optimization in __resctrl_sched_in
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tony.luck@intel.com,
        reinette.chatre@intel.com, fenghua.yu@intel.com,
        peternewman@google.com, james.morse@arm.com, babu.moger@amd.com,
        ananth.narayan@amd.com, vschneid@redhat.com,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <llvm@lists.linux.dev>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 3:36=E2=80=AFAM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org=
> wrote:
>
> > I don't have a satisfactory answer yet, but am looking into this.
>
> Oh, geez, what a twisty tale that... So Linus knew back in '09 that "p"
> was icky, but it sorta was the only thing and it 'worked' -- until now
> :/

Yeah, so 'p' definitely is about the pointer, and I do worry that it
is only a dependency on exactly that - not the memory behind it.

I have this dim memory about us having talked about this with some gcc
person, and coming to the conclusion that it was all fine, but I
suspect it was in some very specific case where it might have been
fine for other reasons.

> Is there a way to explicitly order these things? barrier() obviously
> isn't going to help here.

So one "asm volatile" should always be ordered wrt another "asm volatile".

I have this other dim memory of it not even being clear whether "asm"
and "asm volatile" are ordered. I don't think they necessarily are
(with the obvious caveat that an asm without any arguments - a
so-called "basic asm" - is always volatile whether the "volatile" is
there or not).

I have a lot of dim memories, in other words. Should that worry me?

And then there's the "memory" clobber, of course.

But both of those are also going to disable CSE.

I do think that percpu_stable_op can use "p", but only when the value
is *truly* stable and there is no question about it being moved around
things that might modify it.

                         Linus