Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Don't use long for 32-bit temp variables in spin lock ops

[Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>]

Olof Johansson writes:

> The spinlock ops have long as their return type (as well as for some
> of the temporary types internally). All locks are 32-bit, so it makes
> no sense to do 64-bit ops on them.
> 
> For example, this is how my compiler built _spin_lock() for me:
> 
> c0000000004b2050:       li      r0,0
> c0000000004b2054:       stb     r0,460(r13)
> c0000000004b2058:       lwz     r0,8(r13)
> c0000000004b205c:       lwarx   r9,0,r3
> c0000000004b2060:       cmpwi   r9,0
> c0000000004b2064:       bne-    c0000000004b2078 <._spin_lock+0x28>
> c0000000004b2068:       stwcx.  r0,0,r3
> c0000000004b206c:       nop
> c0000000004b2070:       bne+    c0000000004b205c <._spin_lock+0xc>
> c0000000004b2074:       isync
> c0000000004b2078:       cmpdi   cr7,r9,0
> c0000000004b207c:       .long 0x4dfe0020
> c0000000004b2080:       mr      r1,r1
> c0000000004b2084:       lwz     r0,0(r3)
> c0000000004b2088:       cmpdi   cr7,r0,0
> c0000000004b208c:       bne+    cr7,c0000000004b2080 <._spin_lock+0x30>
> c0000000004b2090:       mr      r2,r2
> c0000000004b2094:       b       c0000000004b2058 <._spin_lock+0x8>
> 
> Note the cmpdi at ..78 when r9 was loaded with lwarx.

That's OK; the lwarx is defined to zero-extend the value to 64 bits.

Or are you implying that cmpdi is slower than cmpwi on some 64-bit
processors? :)

Paul.