From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NjZx8-0008WL-J1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:12:06 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57840 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NjZx8-0008WD-3x
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:12:06 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim
	4.60) (envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1NjZx5-0002Td-U2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:12:05 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49136)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1NjZx5-0002TU-Ip
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:12:03 -0500
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:08:48 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20100222150848.GD20580@redhat.com>
References: <20100222135906.347393434@amt.cnet>
	<20100222140210.130087300@amt.cnet>
	<4B829364.7020300@redhat.com> <20100222144541.GC18992@amt.cnet>
	<4B829B59.3020803@redhat.com> <20100222145739.GC20580@redhat.com>
	<4B829DD0.4010009@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4B829DD0.4010009@redhat.com>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [patch uq/master 2/2] kvm-all.c: define smp_wmb
	and use it for coalesced mmio
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 05:08:00PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/22/2010 04:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>>    
>>>> There is no need (for this case). Older read cannot be reordered with
>>>> write, writes are not reordered with other writes, writes by a single
>>>> processor are observed in the same order by all processors.
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> Well, Linux does use sfence.
>>>      
>> At least on 64 bit it doesnt.
>>    
>
> Right, I was looking at wmb(), not smp_wmb().
>
>>> I imagine all arches need an instruction.  For reads as well.
>>>
>>> Note, gcc has a __sync_synchronize() builtin that compiles to mfence on
>>> x86.  We might use that as a baseline for both rmb and wmb, and let each
>>> arch override it incrementally.
>>>      
>> This it what my patch did. Note it only works well for recent gcc.
>>    
>
> Do you know how recent?

IIRC 4.3 has broken implementation.
4.4 seems OK as far as I can tell.

> -- 
> error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function