From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752653AbbHaH7x (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 31 Aug 2015 03:59:53 -0400
Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]:34040 "EHLO
	mail-wi0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750922AbbHaH7v (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 31 Aug 2015 03:59:51 -0400
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 09:59:47 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        x86@kernel.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/bitops: implement __test_bit
Message-ID: <20150831075947.GA9974@gmail.com>
References: <1440776707-22016-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
 <20150831060549.GB7093@gmail.com>
 <0779C35A-141F-4019-942A-CD3F861048A3@zytor.com>
 <20150831105355-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150831105355-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 11:13:20PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Presumably because gcc can't generate bt... whether or not it is worth it is another matter.
> > 
> > On August 30, 2015 11:05:49 PM PDT, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >* Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> +static __always_inline int __constant_test_bit(long nr, const
> > >unsigned long *addr)
> > >> +{
> > >> +	return ((1UL << (nr & (BITS_PER_LONG-1))) &
> > >> +		(addr[nr >> _BITOPS_LONG_SHIFT])) != 0;
> > >> +}
> > >> +
> > >> +static inline int __variable_test_bit(long nr, const unsigned long
> > >*addr)
> > >> +{
> > >> +	int oldbit;
> > >> +
> > >> +	asm volatile("bt %2,%1\n\t"
> > >> +		     "sbb %0,%0"
> > >> +		     : "=r" (oldbit)
> > >> +		     : "m" (*addr), "Ir" (nr));
> > >> +
> > >> +	return oldbit;
> > >> +}
> > >
> > >Color me confused, why use assembly for this at all?
> > >
> > >Why not just use C for testing the bit (i.e. turn __constant_test_bit()
> > >into 
> > >__test_bit()) - that would also allow the compiler to propagate the
> > >result, 
> > >potentially more optimally than we can do it via SBB...
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >
> > >	Ingo
> 
> Exactly:
> 
> 
> Disassembly of section .text:
> 
> 00000000 <__variable_test_bit>:
> __variable_test_bit():
>    0:   8b 54 24 08             mov    0x8(%esp),%edx
>    4:   8b 44 24 04             mov    0x4(%esp),%eax
>    8:   0f a3 02                bt     %eax,(%edx)
>    b:   19 c0                   sbb    %eax,%eax
>    d:   c3                      ret    
>    e:   66 90                   xchg   %ax,%ax
> 
> 00000010 <__constant_test_bit>:
> __constant_test_bit():
>   10:   8b 4c 24 04             mov    0x4(%esp),%ecx
>   14:   8b 44 24 08             mov    0x8(%esp),%eax
>   18:   89 ca                   mov    %ecx,%edx
>   1a:   c1 fa 04                sar    $0x4,%edx
>   1d:   8b 04 90                mov    (%eax,%edx,4),%eax
>   20:   d3 e8                   shr    %cl,%eax
>   22:   83 e0 01                and    $0x1,%eax
>   25:   c3                      ret    

But that's due to the forced interface of generating a return code. Please compare 
it at an inlined usage site, where GCC is free to do the comparison directly and 
use the result in flags.

Thanks,

	Ingo