From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1761017AbXGUWYv@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1761017AbXGUWYv (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:24:51 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752736AbXGUWYn
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:24:43 -0400
Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:33101 "EHLO
	terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752395AbXGUWYm (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:24:42 -0400
Message-ID: <46A2879F.5050702@zytor.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 15:24:31 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070419)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com>
CC: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
       Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Create clflush() inline, remove hardcoded wbinvd
References: <1184885740.16311.19.camel@t60> <200707202119.l6KLJwcd004205@tazenda.hos.anvin.org> <20070721181137.GH4152@rhun.haifa.ibm.com> <46A263FA.70501@zytor.com> <20070721201634.GF1193@rhun.ibm.com> <46A26A2E.7070305@zytor.com> <20070721204458.GG1193@rhun.ibm.com> <46A28425.2010202@zytor.com>
In-Reply-To: <46A28425.2010202@zytor.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
>> Ok, let's try again:
>>
>> You're changing this (pageattr.c)
>>
>>                 asm volatile("clflush (%0)" :: "r" (adr + i));
>>
>> into this:
>>
>> 		asm volatile("clflush %0" : "+m" (*(char __force*)(adr + i)));
>>
>> The original one calls clflush with (adr + i), the new one with (*(adr
>> + i)). Are these calls equivalent?
> 
> Yes, they are.  The parentheses which are part of the old assembly
> string has the same effect as the asterisk operator in C.
> 
> The difference between the two is that the latter form allows the C
> compiler to select the addressing mode, which allows the full range of
> addressing modes, whereas the former forces it to use a single register
> indirect.
> 

Just to be absolutely obvious about it:

: tazenda 15 ; cat demo.c
#define __force

static inline void clflush1(volatile void *__p)
{
        asm volatile("clflush %0" : "+m" (*(char __force *)__p));
}

static inline void clflush2(volatile void *__p)
{
        asm volatile("clflush (%0)" :: "r" (__p));
}

void demo(void *q)
{
        clflush1(q);
        clflush2(q);
}
: tazenda 16 ; gcc -m32 -O3 -S demo.c
: tazenda 17 ; cat demo.s
        .file   "demo.c"
        .text
        .p2align 4,,15
.globl demo
        .type   demo, @function
demo:
        pushl   %ebp
        movl    %esp, %ebp
        movl    8(%ebp), %eax
#APP
        clflush (%eax)
        clflush (%eax)
#NO_APP
        popl    %ebp
        ret
        .size   demo, .-demo
        .ident  "GCC: (GNU) 4.1.2 20070626 (Red Hat 4.1.2-13)"
        .section        .note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits