Remove the __xg() hack to create a memory barrier near xchg and
cmpxchg; it has been there since 1.3.11 but should not be necessary
with "asm volatile" and a "memory" clobber, neither of which were
there in the original implementation.
However, we *should* make this a volatile reference.
Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
LKML-Reference: <AANLkTikAmaDPji-TVDarmG1yD=fwbffcsmEU=YEuP+8r@mail.gmail.com>
Clean up and simplify set_64bit(). This code is quite old (1.3.11)
and contains a fair bit of auxilliary machinery that current versions
of gcc handle just fine automatically. Worse, the auxilliary
machinery can actually cause an unnecessary spill to memory.
Furthermore, the loading of the old value inside the loop in the
32-bit case is unnecessary: if the value doesn't match, the CMPXCHG8B
instruction will already have loaded the "new previous" value for us.
Clean up the comment, too, and remove page references to obsolete
versions of the Intel SDM.
Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
LKML-Reference: <tip-*@vger.kernel.org>
xchg() and cmpxchg() modify their memory operands, not merely read
them. For some versions of gcc the "memory" clobber has apparently
dealt with the situation, but not for all.
Originally-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Glauber Costa <glommer@redhat.com>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Palfrader <peter@palfrader.org>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Zachary Amsden <zamsden@redhat.com>
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Cc: <stable@kernel.org>
LKML-Reference: <4C4F7277.8050306@zytor.com>
Rework the x86 cmpxchg() implementation to generate build failures
when used on improper types.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
LKML-Reference: <1254771187.21044.22.camel@laptop>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Change header guards named "ASM_X86__*" to "_ASM_X86_*" since:
a. the double underscore is ugly and pointless.
b. no leading underscore violates namespace constraints.
Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
H. Peter Anvin