From: Borislav Petkov <bp@amd64.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>,
Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>,
Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] bitops: compile time optimization for hweight_long(CONSTANT)
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 10:36:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100206093659.GA28326@aftab> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B6C93A2.1090302@zytor.com>
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 01:54:42PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 02/05/2010 04:11 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > +
> > +unsigned int __arch_hweight16(unsigned int w)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int res = 0;
> > +
> > + asm volatile("xor %%dh, %%dh\n\t"
> > + __arch_hweight_alt(32)
> > + : "=di" (res)
> > + : "di" (w)
> > + : "ecx", "memory");
> > +
>
> This is wrong in more ways than I can shake a stick at.
Thanks for reviewing it though - how else would I learn :).
> a) "di" doesn't mean the DI register - it means the DX register (d) or
> an immediate (i). Since you don't have any reference to either %0 or %1
> in your code, you have no way of knowing which one it is. The
> constraint for the di register is "D".
right.
> b) On 32 bits, the first argument register is in %eax (with %edx used
> for the upper half of a 32-bit argument), but on 64 bits, the first
> argument is in %rdi, with the return still in %rax.
Sure, it is right there in arch/x86/include/asm/calling.h. Shame on me.
> c) You call a C function, but you don't clobber the set of registers
> that a C function would clobber. You either need to put the function in
> an assembly wrapper (which is better in the long run), or clobber the
> full set of registers that is clobbered by a C function (which is better
> in the short term) -- which is eax, edx, ecx on 32 bits, but rax, rdi,
> esi, rdx, rcx, r8, r9, r10, r11 on 64 bits.
I think you mean rsi instead of esi here.
Well, the example Brian pointed me to - __mutex_fastpath_lock - lists
the full set of clobbered registers. Please elaborate on the assembly
wrapper for the function, wouldn't I need to list all the clobbered
registers there too or am I missing something?
> d) On the other hand, you do *not* need a "memory" clobber.
Right, in this case we have all non-barrier like inlines so no memory
clobber, according to the comment above alternative() macro.
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
-
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Operating Systems Research Center
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-06 9:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 81+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-30 9:45 [PATCH 0/5] [RESEND] FMODE_NONOTIFY and FMODE_NEG_OFFSET bits Wu Fengguang
2010-01-30 9:45 ` [PATCH 1/5] fanotify: fix FMODE_NONOTIFY bit number Wu Fengguang
2010-02-01 20:44 ` Andrew Morton
2010-01-30 9:45 ` [PATCH 2/5] bitops: compile time optimization for hweight_long(CONSTANT) Wu Fengguang
2010-02-01 20:48 ` Andrew Morton
2010-02-03 13:39 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-03 15:08 ` Andrew Morton
2010-02-03 15:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-02-03 15:42 ` Andrew Morton
2010-02-03 15:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-02-03 17:11 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-03 18:14 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-02-03 18:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-02-03 19:49 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-04 15:10 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-02-04 15:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-02-04 15:54 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-02-04 16:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-02-05 12:11 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-02-05 12:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-02-05 21:54 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-06 9:36 ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2010-02-07 1:55 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-08 9:28 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-02-08 9:35 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-08 9:59 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-02-11 17:24 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-02-11 17:33 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-12 17:06 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-02-12 17:28 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-12 17:47 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-02-12 19:05 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-17 13:57 ` Michal Marek
2010-02-17 17:20 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-02-17 17:31 ` Michal Marek
2010-02-17 17:34 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-02-17 17:39 ` Michal Marek
2010-02-18 6:19 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-02-19 14:22 ` [PATCH] x86: Add optimized popcnt variants Borislav Petkov
2010-02-19 16:06 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-19 16:45 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-02-19 16:53 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-22 14:17 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-02-22 17:21 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-22 18:49 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-02-22 19:55 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-23 6:37 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-02-23 15:58 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-02-23 17:34 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-23 17:54 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-02-23 18:17 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-23 19:06 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-02-26 5:27 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-26 7:47 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-02-26 17:48 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-27 8:28 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-02-27 20:00 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-03-09 15:36 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-03-09 15:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-09 16:23 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-03-09 16:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-09 17:32 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-03-09 17:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-18 11:17 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-03-18 11:19 ` [PATCH 1/2] bitops: Optimize hweight() by making use of compile-time evaluation Borislav Petkov
2010-03-18 11:20 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86: Add optimized popcnt variants Borislav Petkov
2010-02-18 10:51 ` [PATCH 2/5] bitops: compile time optimization for hweight_long(CONSTANT) Peter Zijlstra
2010-02-18 11:51 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-02-14 10:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-02-14 11:24 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-02-14 12:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-02-14 14:19 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-02-14 18:36 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-14 20:28 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-02-14 22:13 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-04 15:16 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-04 15:39 ` Brian Gerst
2010-02-03 17:10 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-01-30 9:45 ` [PATCH 3/5] vfs: O_* bit numbers uniqueness check Wu Fengguang
2010-01-30 9:45 ` [PATCH 4/5] vfs: introduce FMODE_NEG_OFFSET for allowing negative f_pos Wu Fengguang
2010-01-30 9:45 ` [PATCH 5/5] devmem: dont allow seek to last page Wu Fengguang
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=20100206093659.GA28326@aftab \
--to=bp@amd64.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=brgerst@gmail.com \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jamie@shareable.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rdreier@cisco.com \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).