From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] powerpc: Fix pre-update addressing in inline assembly
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 06:51:16 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201020115116.GY2672@gate.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ff158583-4e25-a5e6-5131-359423037e4f@csgroup.eu>
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 09:44:33AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Le 19/10/2020 à 22:24, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
> >>but the associated "<>" constraint is missing.
> >
> >But that is just fine. Pointless, sure, but not a bug.
>
> Most of those are from prehistoric code. So at some point in time it was
> effective. Then one day GCC changed it's way and they became pointless. So,
> not a software bug, but still a regression at some point.
>
> >>Use UPD_CONSTR macro everywhere %Un modifier is used.
> >
> >Eww. My poor stomach.
>
> There are not that many :)
Heh, your pain threshold is much higher than mine I guess :-)
> >Have you verified that update form is *correct* in all these, and that
> >we even *want* this there?
>
> I can't see anything that would militate against it, do you ?
>
> I guess if the elders have put %Us there, it was wanted.
On old CPUs, update form load/stores actually executed faster than a
"normal" memory access and an addi (or plain add). But on more recent
stuff it mostly saves code size. Which is nice of course, and can speed
up your code a bit, in theory at least.
It is quite hard to trigger the compiler to generate update form insns
in asm, sigh. So testing will probably not show anything either way.
Oh well :-)
Segher
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] powerpc: Fix pre-update addressing in inline assembly
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 06:51:16 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201020115116.GY2672@gate.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ff158583-4e25-a5e6-5131-359423037e4f@csgroup.eu>
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 09:44:33AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Le 19/10/2020 à 22:24, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
> >>but the associated "<>" constraint is missing.
> >
> >But that is just fine. Pointless, sure, but not a bug.
>
> Most of those are from prehistoric code. So at some point in time it was
> effective. Then one day GCC changed it's way and they became pointless. So,
> not a software bug, but still a regression at some point.
>
> >>Use UPD_CONSTR macro everywhere %Un modifier is used.
> >
> >Eww. My poor stomach.
>
> There are not that many :)
Heh, your pain threshold is much higher than mine I guess :-)
> >Have you verified that update form is *correct* in all these, and that
> >we even *want* this there?
>
> I can't see anything that would militate against it, do you ?
>
> I guess if the elders have put %Us there, it was wanted.
On old CPUs, update form load/stores actually executed faster than a
"normal" memory access and an addi (or plain add). But on more recent
stuff it mostly saves code size. Which is nice of course, and can speed
up your code a bit, in theory at least.
It is quite hard to trigger the compiler to generate update form insns
in asm, sigh. So testing will probably not show anything either way.
Oh well :-)
Segher
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-20 12:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-19 12:12 [PATCH 1/3] powerpc/uaccess: Don't use "m<>" constraint with GCC 4.9 Christophe Leroy
2020-10-19 12:12 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-10-19 12:12 ` [PATCH 2/3] powerpc: Fix incorrect stw{, ux, u, x} instructions in __set_pte_at Christophe Leroy
2020-10-19 12:12 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-10-19 20:14 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-10-19 20:14 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-10-19 12:12 ` [PATCH 3/3] powerpc: Fix pre-update addressing in inline assembly Christophe Leroy
2020-10-19 12:12 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-10-19 15:35 ` kernel test robot
2020-10-19 15:35 ` kernel test robot
2020-10-19 15:35 ` kernel test robot
2020-10-19 18:23 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-10-19 18:23 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-10-19 20:24 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-10-19 20:24 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-10-20 7:44 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-10-20 7:44 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-10-20 11:51 ` Segher Boessenkool [this message]
2020-10-20 11:51 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-10-19 20:10 ` [PATCH 1/3] powerpc/uaccess: Don't use "m<>" constraint with GCC 4.9 Segher Boessenkool
2020-10-19 20:10 ` Segher Boessenkool
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=20201020115116.GY2672@gate.crashing.org \
--to=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/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.