| Date | Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:08:57 -0700 | From | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 03 of 36] x86: add memory barriers to wrmsr |
| |
Arjan van de Ven wrote: > it's more readable for several of these cases to stick a barrier(); in > front and after it to be honest; that makes it more explicit that > these are deliberate compiler barriers rather than "actual" memory > access... > >
I suppose, though I would be inclined to put the barriers in the wrmsr macro itself to act as documentation. Either way, I don't think there's any legitimate reason to let the compiler reorder things around a wrmsr, and it should be an inherent property of the macro, rather than relying on ad-hoc barriers where it gets used. After all, that's a fairly accurate reflection of how the micro-architecture treats wrmsr...
J
|