All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: David Brown <davidb@codeaurora.org>,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] msm: scm: Fix improper register assignment
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:22:03 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D68015B.1050409@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1298640219.958.74.camel@e102144-lin.cambridge.arm.com>

On 02/25/2011 05:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 18:44 +0000, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> Assign the registers used in the inline assembly immediately
>> before the inline assembly block. This ensures the compiler
>> doesn't optimize away dead register assignments when it
>> shouldn't.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm/mach-msm/scm.c |    7 +++++--
>>  1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-msm/scm.c b/arch/arm/mach-msm/scm.c
>> index ba57b5a..5eddf54 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-msm/scm.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-msm/scm.c
>> @@ -264,13 +264,16 @@ u32 scm_get_version(void)
>>  {
>>         int context_id;
>>         static u32 version = -1;
>> -       register u32 r0 asm("r0") = 0x1 << 8;
>> -       register u32 r1 asm("r1") = (u32)&context_id;
>> +       register u32 r0 asm("r0");
>> +       register u32 r1 asm("r1");
>>
>>         if (version != -1)
>>                 return version;
>>
>>         mutex_lock(&scm_lock);
>> +
>> +       r0 = 0x1 << 8;
>> +       r1 = (u32)&context_id;
>>         asm volatile(
>>                 __asmeq("%0", "r1")
>>                 __asmeq("%1", "r0")
>
>
> Whoa, have you seen the compiler `optimise' the original assignments
> away? Since there is a use in the asm block, the definition shouldn't
> be omitted. What toolchain are you using

Yes I've seen the r0 and r1 assignments get optimized away. I'm
suspecting it's because the mutex_lock() is between the assignments and
usage. I'm guessing the assignment to r0 and r1 are actually generated,
but then they're optimized away because the mutex_lock() isn't inlined
and thus r0 and r1 assigned to something that isn't &scm_lock can be
"safely" removed (dead register assignments). I can't confirm any of
this since I don't know what gcc is doing internally or even how to
probe what it's doing (yeah I know I could go read gcc sources).
Suggestions?

I've seen it with two different compilers so far:

gcc (Sourcery G++ Lite 2010.09-50) 4.5.1
arm-eabi-gcc (GCC) 4.4.0

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: sboyd@codeaurora.org (Stephen Boyd)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/4] msm: scm: Fix improper register assignment
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:22:03 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D68015B.1050409@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1298640219.958.74.camel@e102144-lin.cambridge.arm.com>

On 02/25/2011 05:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 18:44 +0000, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> Assign the registers used in the inline assembly immediately
>> before the inline assembly block. This ensures the compiler
>> doesn't optimize away dead register assignments when it
>> shouldn't.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm/mach-msm/scm.c |    7 +++++--
>>  1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-msm/scm.c b/arch/arm/mach-msm/scm.c
>> index ba57b5a..5eddf54 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-msm/scm.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-msm/scm.c
>> @@ -264,13 +264,16 @@ u32 scm_get_version(void)
>>  {
>>         int context_id;
>>         static u32 version = -1;
>> -       register u32 r0 asm("r0") = 0x1 << 8;
>> -       register u32 r1 asm("r1") = (u32)&context_id;
>> +       register u32 r0 asm("r0");
>> +       register u32 r1 asm("r1");
>>
>>         if (version != -1)
>>                 return version;
>>
>>         mutex_lock(&scm_lock);
>> +
>> +       r0 = 0x1 << 8;
>> +       r1 = (u32)&context_id;
>>         asm volatile(
>>                 __asmeq("%0", "r1")
>>                 __asmeq("%1", "r0")
>
>
> Whoa, have you seen the compiler `optimise' the original assignments
> away? Since there is a use in the asm block, the definition shouldn't
> be omitted. What toolchain are you using

Yes I've seen the r0 and r1 assignments get optimized away. I'm
suspecting it's because the mutex_lock() is between the assignments and
usage. I'm guessing the assignment to r0 and r1 are actually generated,
but then they're optimized away because the mutex_lock() isn't inlined
and thus r0 and r1 assigned to something that isn't &scm_lock can be
"safely" removed (dead register assignments). I can't confirm any of
this since I don't know what gcc is doing internally or even how to
probe what it's doing (yeah I know I could go read gcc sources).
Suggestions?

I've seen it with two different compilers so far:

gcc (Sourcery G++ Lite 2010.09-50) 4.5.1
arm-eabi-gcc (GCC) 4.4.0

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

  reply	other threads:[~2011-02-25 19:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-02-24 18:44 [PATCH 0/4] SCM fixes and updates Stephen Boyd
2011-02-24 18:44 ` Stephen Boyd
2011-02-24 18:44 ` [PATCH 1/4] msm: scm: Mark inline asm as volatile Stephen Boyd
2011-02-24 18:44   ` Stephen Boyd
2011-02-25 11:56   ` Will Deacon
2011-02-25 11:56     ` Will Deacon
2011-02-25 11:56     ` Will Deacon
2011-02-25 19:05     ` Stephen Boyd
2011-02-25 19:05       ` Stephen Boyd
2011-02-26 18:12     ` David Brown
2011-02-26 18:12       ` David Brown
2011-02-26 19:43       ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-02-26 19:43         ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-02-27 17:41         ` David Brown
2011-02-27 17:41           ` David Brown
2011-02-28  2:21           ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-02-28  2:21             ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-02-27 11:10       ` Will Deacon
2011-02-27 11:10         ` Will Deacon
2011-02-27 17:38         ` David Brown
2011-02-27 17:38           ` David Brown
2011-03-01 10:30           ` Will Deacon
2011-03-01 10:30             ` Will Deacon
2011-02-24 18:44 ` [PATCH 2/4] msm: scm: Fix improper register assignment Stephen Boyd
2011-02-24 18:44   ` Stephen Boyd
2011-02-25 13:23   ` Will Deacon
2011-02-25 13:23     ` Will Deacon
2011-02-25 19:22     ` Stephen Boyd [this message]
2011-02-25 19:22       ` Stephen Boyd
2011-02-26  5:09     ` Saravana Kannan
2011-02-26  5:09       ` Saravana Kannan
2011-02-26  8:47       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-02-26  8:47         ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-02-26 17:58         ` David Brown
2011-02-26 17:58           ` David Brown
2011-02-26 20:04           ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-02-26 20:04             ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-03-01 10:37             ` Will Deacon
2011-03-01 10:37               ` Will Deacon
2011-03-01 21:29               ` Saravana Kannan
2011-03-01 21:29                 ` Saravana Kannan
2011-03-02  0:02                 ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-03-02  0:02                   ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-03-01 13:54             ` Will Deacon
2011-03-01 13:54               ` Will Deacon
2011-02-24 18:44 ` [PATCH 3/4] msm: scm: Check for interruption immediately Stephen Boyd
2011-02-24 18:44   ` Stephen Boyd
2011-02-24 18:44 ` [PATCH 4/4] msm: scm: Get cacheline size from CTR Stephen Boyd
2011-02-24 18:44   ` Stephen Boyd
2011-02-24 19:01   ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-02-24 19:01     ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-02-24 19:44     ` Stephen Boyd
2011-02-24 19:44       ` Stephen Boyd
2011-02-24 19:56       ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-02-24 19:56         ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-03-01  4:21         ` Stephen Boyd
2011-03-01  4:21           ` Stephen Boyd
2011-02-24 19:32   ` Sergei Shtylyov
2011-02-24 19:32     ` Sergei Shtylyov
2011-02-24 19:50     ` Stephen Boyd
2011-02-24 19:50       ` Stephen Boyd
2011-02-24 19:55     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-02-24 19:55       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-03-09 19:29 ` [PATCH 0/4] SCM fixes and updates Stephen Boyd
2011-03-09 19:29   ` Stephen Boyd
2011-03-10 20:06   ` David Brown
2011-03-10 20:06     ` David Brown

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=4D68015B.1050409@codeaurora.org \
    --to=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=davidb@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /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.