Re: [PATCH 08/17] alpha: Implement xor_unlock_is_negative_byte

Matthew Wilcox
2023-09-16T16:00:17Z

On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 07:01:14PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Sept 2023 at 17:38, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 05:27:17PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Fri, 15 Sept 2023 at 11:37, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)
> > > <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > + "1: ldl_l %0,%4\n"
> > > > + " xor %0,%3,%0\n"
> > > > + " xor %0,%3,%2\n"
> > > > + " stl_c %0,%1\n"
> > >
> > > What an odd thing to do.
> > >
> > > Why don't you just save the old value? That double xor looks all kinds
> > > of strange, and is a data dependency for no good reason that I can
> > > see.
> > >
> > > Why isn't this "ldl_l + mov %0,%2 + xor + stl_c" instead?
> > >
> > > Not that I think alpha matters, but since I was looking through the
> > > series, this just made me go "Whaa?"
> >
> > Well, this is my first time writing Alpha assembler ;-) I stole this
> > from ATOMIC_OP_RETURN:
> >
> > "1: ldl_l %0,%1\n" \
> > " " #asm_op " %0,%3,%2\n" \
> > " " #asm_op " %0,%3,%0\n" \
>
> Note how that does "orig" assignment first (ie the '%2" destination is
> the first instruction), unlike your version.

Wow. I totally missed that I'd transposed those two lines. I read
it back with the lines in the order that they should have been in.
Every time I read it. I was wondering why you were talking about a data
dependency, and I just couldn't see it. With the lines in the order that
they're actually in, it's quite obvious and totally not what I meant.
Of course, it doesn't matter which order they're in from the point of
view of testing the waiters bit since we don't change the waiters bit.

> Does any of this matter? Nope. It's alpha. There's probably a handful
> of machines, and it's maybe one extra cycle. It's really the oddity
> that threw me.

I'll admit to spending far more time on the m68k version of this than
the alpha version ;-)