From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>,
xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Cc: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: simplify non-atomic bitops
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:14:11 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54DB71C3.8050502@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54DB6984020000780005F0DB@mail.emea.novell.com>
On 11/02/15 13:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
> - being non-atomic, their pointer arguments shouldn't be volatile-
> qualified
> - their (half fake) memory operands can be a single "+m" instead of
> being both an output and an input
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> ---
> v2: Drop "+m" related sentence from comment at the top of the file as
> being wrong (the referenced indication in gcc's documentation got
> removed quite some time ago too).
>
> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/bitops.h
> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/bitops.h
> @@ -14,8 +14,7 @@
> * operand is both read from and written to. Since the operand is in fact a
> * word array, we also specify "memory" in the clobbers list to indicate that
> * words other than the one directly addressed by the memory operand may be
> - * modified. We don't use "+m" because the gcc manual says that it should be
> - * used only when the constraint allows the operand to reside in a register.
> + * modified.
> */
>
> #define ADDR (*(volatile long *) addr)
> @@ -55,12 +54,9 @@ static inline void set_bit(int nr, volat
> * If it's called on the same region of memory simultaneously, the effect
> * may be that only one operation succeeds.
> */
> -static inline void __set_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
> +static inline void __set_bit(int nr, void *addr)
> {
> - asm volatile (
> - "btsl %1,%0"
> - : "=m" (ADDR)
> - : "Ir" (nr), "m" (ADDR) : "memory");
> + asm volatile ( "btsl %1,%0" : "+m" (ADDR) : "Ir" (nr) : "memory" );
You presumably want to s/ADDR/addr/ to avoid re-gaining the volatile
attribute on the pointer?
~Andrew
> }
> #define __set_bit(nr, addr) ({ \
> if ( bitop_bad_size(addr) ) __bitop_bad_size(); \
> @@ -95,12 +91,9 @@ static inline void clear_bit(int nr, vol
> * If it's called on the same region of memory simultaneously, the effect
> * may be that only one operation succeeds.
> */
> -static inline void __clear_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
> +static inline void __clear_bit(int nr, void *addr)
> {
> - asm volatile (
> - "btrl %1,%0"
> - : "=m" (ADDR)
> - : "Ir" (nr), "m" (ADDR) : "memory");
> + asm volatile ( "btrl %1,%0" : "+m" (ADDR) : "Ir" (nr) : "memory" );
> }
> #define __clear_bit(nr, addr) ({ \
> if ( bitop_bad_size(addr) ) __bitop_bad_size(); \
> @@ -116,12 +109,9 @@ static inline void __clear_bit(int nr, v
> * If it's called on the same region of memory simultaneously, the effect
> * may be that only one operation succeeds.
> */
> -static inline void __change_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
> +static inline void __change_bit(int nr, void *addr)
> {
> - asm volatile (
> - "btcl %1,%0"
> - : "=m" (ADDR)
> - : "Ir" (nr), "m" (ADDR) : "memory");
> + asm volatile ( "btcl %1,%0" : "+m" (ADDR) : "Ir" (nr) : "memory" );
> }
> #define __change_bit(nr, addr) ({ \
> if ( bitop_bad_size(addr) ) __bitop_bad_size(); \
> @@ -181,14 +171,14 @@ static inline int test_and_set_bit(int n
> * If two examples of this operation race, one can appear to succeed
> * but actually fail. You must protect multiple accesses with a lock.
> */
> -static inline int __test_and_set_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
> +static inline int __test_and_set_bit(int nr, void *addr)
> {
> int oldbit;
>
> asm volatile (
> "btsl %2,%1\n\tsbbl %0,%0"
> - : "=r" (oldbit), "=m" (ADDR)
> - : "Ir" (nr), "m" (ADDR) : "memory");
> + : "=r" (oldbit), "+m" (ADDR)
> + : "Ir" (nr) : "memory" );
> return oldbit;
> }
> #define __test_and_set_bit(nr, addr) ({ \
> @@ -228,14 +218,14 @@ static inline int test_and_clear_bit(int
> * If two examples of this operation race, one can appear to succeed
> * but actually fail. You must protect multiple accesses with a lock.
> */
> -static inline int __test_and_clear_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
> +static inline int __test_and_clear_bit(int nr, void *addr)
> {
> int oldbit;
>
> asm volatile (
> "btrl %2,%1\n\tsbbl %0,%0"
> - : "=r" (oldbit), "=m" (ADDR)
> - : "Ir" (nr), "m" (ADDR) : "memory");
> + : "=r" (oldbit), "+m" (ADDR)
> + : "Ir" (nr) : "memory" );
> return oldbit;
> }
> #define __test_and_clear_bit(nr, addr) ({ \
> @@ -244,14 +234,14 @@ static inline int __test_and_clear_bit(i
> })
>
> /* WARNING: non atomic and it can be reordered! */
> -static inline int __test_and_change_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
> +static inline int __test_and_change_bit(int nr, void *addr)
> {
> int oldbit;
>
> asm volatile (
> "btcl %2,%1\n\tsbbl %0,%0"
> - : "=r" (oldbit), "=m" (ADDR)
> - : "Ir" (nr), "m" (ADDR) : "memory");
> + : "=r" (oldbit), "+m" (ADDR)
> + : "Ir" (nr) : "memory" );
> return oldbit;
> }
> #define __test_and_change_bit(nr, addr) ({ \
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-11 15:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-11 13:39 [PATCH] x86: simplify non-atomic bitops Jan Beulich
2015-02-11 15:14 ` Andrew Cooper [this message]
2015-02-11 15:41 ` Jan Beulich
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-01-19 15:52 Jan Beulich
2015-01-19 17:21 ` Andrew Cooper
2015-01-20 8:09 ` Jan Beulich
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=54DB71C3.8050502@citrix.com \
--to=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=keir@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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.