On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 05:53:20PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 06:42:48PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > Oh, I think this means we need a "cc" clobber. > > Btw, does your microbenchmark do it too? Yes - I fixed it now, but it did not affect the result. We'd need some code where gcc carries flags around though. > Because, the "cc" clobber should cause additional handling of flags, > depending on the context. It won't matter if the context doesn't need > rFLAGS handling in the benchmark but if we start using LOCK; ADD in the > kernel, I can imagine some places where mb() is used and rFLAGS are > live, causing gcc to either reorder code or stash them away... It will reorder code but not necessarily for the worse :) Best I can do, I will add cc clobber to kernel and see whether binary size grows. > -- > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > > ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
