lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.13 for 2.6.17
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> To protect code from being preempted, the macros preempt_disable and
> preempt_enable must normally be used. Logically, this macro must make sure gcc
> doesn't interleave preemptible code and non-preemptible code.
>

No, it only needs to prevent globally visible side-effects from being
moved into/out of preemptable blocks. In practice that means memory
updates (including the implicit ones that calls to external functions
are assumed to make).

> Which makes me think that if I put barriers around my asm, call, asm trio, no
> other code will be interleaved. Is it right ?
>

No global side effects, but code with local side effects could be moved
around without changing the meaning of preempt.

For example:

int foo;
extern int global;

foo = some_function();

foo += 42;

preempt_disable();
// stuff
preempt_enable();

global = foo;
foo += other_thing();

Assume here that some_function and other_function are extern, and so gcc
has no insight into their behaviour and therefore conservatively assumes
they have global side-effects.

The memory barriers in preempt_disable/enable will prevent gcc from
moving any of the function calls into the non-preemptable region. But
because "foo" is local and isn't visible to any other code, there's no
reason why the "foo += 42" couldn't move into the preempt region.
Likewise, the assignment to "global" can't move out of the range between
the preempt_enable and the call to other_thing().

So in your case, if your equivalent of the non-preemptable block is the
call to the marker function, then there's a good chance that the
compiler might decide to move some other code in there.

Now it might be possible to take the addresses of labels to inhibit code
motion into a particular range:

{
__label__ before, after;
asm volatile("" : : "m" (*&&before), "m" (*&&after)); // gcc can't know what we're doing with the labels

before: ;
// stuff
after: ;
}

but that might be risky for several reasons: I don't know of any
particular promises gcc makes in this circumstance; I suspect taking the
address of a label will have a pretty severe inhibition on what
optimisations gcc's is willing to use (it may prevent inlining
altogether); and this looks pretty unusual, so there could be bugs.

J
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-09-26 03:07    [W:0.078 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site