From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>
Cc: Paulius Zaleckas <paulius.zaleckas@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de, simon.kagstrom@netinsight.net,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, dwmw2@infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, rth@twiddle.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] MTD: Fix Orion NAND driver compilation with ARM OABI
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 03:58:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100424025858.GJ15349@shareable.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1004231443340.7232@xanadu.home>
Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > > asm volatile ("ldrd\t%0, [%1]" : "=&r" (x) : "r" (io_base));
> > > buf64[i++] = x;
> >
> > The "register...asm" looks fine, but it occurs to me the constraints
> > are too weak (and they were before), so GCC could optimise that to the
> > wrong behaviour.
> >
> > The "volatile" prevents GCC deleting the asm if it's output isn't
> > used, but it doesn't stop GCC from reordering the asms, for example if
> > it decides to unroll the loop. It probably won't reorder in that
> > case, but it could. The result would be out of order values stored
> > into buf[]. It could even move the ldrd earlier than the prior byte
> > accesses, or after the later byte accesses.
>
> I don't see how that could happen. The store into buf[] puts a
> dependency on the output constraint of the inline asm statement. And by
> vertue of being volatile, gcc cannot cache the result of the output from
> the asm as if it was a pure function.
The store into buf[] dependency doesn't stop this, after unrolling:
asm volatile ("ldrd\t%0, [%1]" : "=&r" (x) : "r" (io_base));
buf64[i++] = x;
asm volatile ("ldrd\t%0, [%1]" : "=&r" (x) : "r" (io_base));
buf64[i++] = x;
from being reordered as this
asm volatile ("ldrd\t%0, [%1]" : "=&r" (x2) : "r" (io_base));
asm volatile ("ldrd\t%0, [%1]" : "=&r" (x1) : "r" (io_base));
buf64[i++] = x1;
buf64[i++] = x2;
because the asm doesn't depend on memory, just register inputs and
outputs;
I'm not sure what you mean about the volatile stopping gcc from
treating the asm as a pure function. Is that meaning of volatile in
the asm documentation? (volatile on asm doesn't mean the same as
volatile on a function, or volatile on a pointer).
> > Any one of these should fix it:
> >
> > - Make io_base a pointer-to-volatile-u64 or cast it in the asm, and
> > make sure to dereference it and use an "m" constraint (or
> > tighter, such as "Q", if ldrd needs it). It must be u64, not
> > pointer-to-void, to tell GCC the size. That tells GCC which memory
> > the asm accesses, and the volatile dereference should tell GCC
> > not to reorder them in principle (but the GCC manual doesn't
> > make a specific promise about this for asms).
>
> The LDRD has special range constraints on its addressing mode which is
> not expressable with any of the available gcc memory constraints.
'Q'
A memory reference where the exact address is in a single
register (''m'' is preferable for 'asm' statements)
If 'r' is good enough for io_base, 'Q' should be good enough for *io_base.
-- Jamie
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: jamie@shareable.org (Jamie Lokier)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] MTD: Fix Orion NAND driver compilation with ARM OABI
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 03:58:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100424025858.GJ15349@shareable.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1004231443340.7232@xanadu.home>
Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > > asm volatile ("ldrd\t%0, [%1]" : "=&r" (x) : "r" (io_base));
> > > buf64[i++] = x;
> >
> > The "register...asm" looks fine, but it occurs to me the constraints
> > are too weak (and they were before), so GCC could optimise that to the
> > wrong behaviour.
> >
> > The "volatile" prevents GCC deleting the asm if it's output isn't
> > used, but it doesn't stop GCC from reordering the asms, for example if
> > it decides to unroll the loop. It probably won't reorder in that
> > case, but it could. The result would be out of order values stored
> > into buf[]. It could even move the ldrd earlier than the prior byte
> > accesses, or after the later byte accesses.
>
> I don't see how that could happen. The store into buf[] puts a
> dependency on the output constraint of the inline asm statement. And by
> vertue of being volatile, gcc cannot cache the result of the output from
> the asm as if it was a pure function.
The store into buf[] dependency doesn't stop this, after unrolling:
asm volatile ("ldrd\t%0, [%1]" : "=&r" (x) : "r" (io_base));
buf64[i++] = x;
asm volatile ("ldrd\t%0, [%1]" : "=&r" (x) : "r" (io_base));
buf64[i++] = x;
from being reordered as this
asm volatile ("ldrd\t%0, [%1]" : "=&r" (x2) : "r" (io_base));
asm volatile ("ldrd\t%0, [%1]" : "=&r" (x1) : "r" (io_base));
buf64[i++] = x1;
buf64[i++] = x2;
because the asm doesn't depend on memory, just register inputs and
outputs;
I'm not sure what you mean about the volatile stopping gcc from
treating the asm as a pure function. Is that meaning of volatile in
the asm documentation? (volatile on asm doesn't mean the same as
volatile on a function, or volatile on a pointer).
> > Any one of these should fix it:
> >
> > - Make io_base a pointer-to-volatile-u64 or cast it in the asm, and
> > make sure to dereference it and use an "m" constraint (or
> > tighter, such as "Q", if ldrd needs it). It must be u64, not
> > pointer-to-void, to tell GCC the size. That tells GCC which memory
> > the asm accesses, and the volatile dereference should tell GCC
> > not to reorder them in principle (but the GCC manual doesn't
> > make a specific promise about this for asms).
>
> The LDRD has special range constraints on its addressing mode which is
> not expressable with any of the available gcc memory constraints.
'Q'
A memory reference where the exact address is in a single
register (''m'' is preferable for 'asm' statements)
If 'r' is good enough for io_base, 'Q' should be good enough for *io_base.
-- Jamie
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>
Cc: Paulius Zaleckas <paulius.zaleckas@gmail.com>,
dwmw2@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de,
simon.kagstrom@netinsight.net, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, rth@twiddle.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] MTD: Fix Orion NAND driver compilation with ARM OABI
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 03:58:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100424025858.GJ15349@shareable.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1004231443340.7232@xanadu.home>
Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > > asm volatile ("ldrd\t%0, [%1]" : "=&r" (x) : "r" (io_base));
> > > buf64[i++] = x;
> >
> > The "register...asm" looks fine, but it occurs to me the constraints
> > are too weak (and they were before), so GCC could optimise that to the
> > wrong behaviour.
> >
> > The "volatile" prevents GCC deleting the asm if it's output isn't
> > used, but it doesn't stop GCC from reordering the asms, for example if
> > it decides to unroll the loop. It probably won't reorder in that
> > case, but it could. The result would be out of order values stored
> > into buf[]. It could even move the ldrd earlier than the prior byte
> > accesses, or after the later byte accesses.
>
> I don't see how that could happen. The store into buf[] puts a
> dependency on the output constraint of the inline asm statement. And by
> vertue of being volatile, gcc cannot cache the result of the output from
> the asm as if it was a pure function.
The store into buf[] dependency doesn't stop this, after unrolling:
asm volatile ("ldrd\t%0, [%1]" : "=&r" (x) : "r" (io_base));
buf64[i++] = x;
asm volatile ("ldrd\t%0, [%1]" : "=&r" (x) : "r" (io_base));
buf64[i++] = x;
from being reordered as this
asm volatile ("ldrd\t%0, [%1]" : "=&r" (x2) : "r" (io_base));
asm volatile ("ldrd\t%0, [%1]" : "=&r" (x1) : "r" (io_base));
buf64[i++] = x1;
buf64[i++] = x2;
because the asm doesn't depend on memory, just register inputs and
outputs;
I'm not sure what you mean about the volatile stopping gcc from
treating the asm as a pure function. Is that meaning of volatile in
the asm documentation? (volatile on asm doesn't mean the same as
volatile on a function, or volatile on a pointer).
> > Any one of these should fix it:
> >
> > - Make io_base a pointer-to-volatile-u64 or cast it in the asm, and
> > make sure to dereference it and use an "m" constraint (or
> > tighter, such as "Q", if ldrd needs it). It must be u64, not
> > pointer-to-void, to tell GCC the size. That tells GCC which memory
> > the asm accesses, and the volatile dereference should tell GCC
> > not to reorder them in principle (but the GCC manual doesn't
> > make a specific promise about this for asms).
>
> The LDRD has special range constraints on its addressing mode which is
> not expressable with any of the available gcc memory constraints.
'Q'
A memory reference where the exact address is in a single
register (''m'' is preferable for 'asm' statements)
If 'r' is good enough for io_base, 'Q' should be good enough for *io_base.
-- Jamie
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-24 2:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-25 15:25 [PATCH v2] MTD: Fix Orion NAND driver compilation with ARM OABI Paulius Zaleckas
2010-03-25 15:25 ` Paulius Zaleckas
2010-03-25 15:25 ` Paulius Zaleckas
2010-03-25 16:26 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-03-25 16:26 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-03-25 16:26 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-03-31 12:01 ` Paulius Zaleckas
2010-03-31 12:01 ` Paulius Zaleckas
2010-03-31 12:01 ` Paulius Zaleckas
2010-04-23 11:56 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2010-04-23 11:56 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2010-04-23 11:56 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2010-04-23 12:54 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-04-23 12:54 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-04-23 12:54 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-04-23 15:13 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2010-04-23 15:13 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2010-04-23 15:13 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2010-04-23 17:50 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-04-23 17:50 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-04-23 17:50 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-04-23 18:00 ` Andrew Morton
2010-04-23 18:00 ` Andrew Morton
2010-04-23 18:00 ` Andrew Morton
2010-04-23 18:22 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-04-23 18:22 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-04-23 18:22 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-03-25 20:46 ` Jamie Lokier
2010-03-25 20:46 ` Jamie Lokier
2010-03-25 20:46 ` Jamie Lokier
2010-04-23 19:06 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-04-23 19:06 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-04-23 19:06 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-04-24 2:58 ` Jamie Lokier [this message]
2010-04-24 2:58 ` Jamie Lokier
2010-04-24 2:58 ` Jamie Lokier
2010-04-24 3:04 ` Jamie Lokier
2010-04-24 3:04 ` Jamie Lokier
2010-04-24 13:02 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-04-24 13:02 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-04-24 13:02 ` Nicolas Pitre
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100424025858.GJ15349@shareable.org \
--to=jamie@shareable.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=nico@fluxnic.net \
--cc=paulius.zaleckas@gmail.com \
--cc=rth@twiddle.net \
--cc=simon.kagstrom@netinsight.net \
--cc=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.