From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/paravirt: Don't make vcpu_is_preempted() a
	callee-save function
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:12:45 -0500
Message-ID: <6f69b112-7ae4-bf8f-b767-29a68fd48632@redhat.com>
References: <1486741389-8513-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com>
	<20170210161928.GI6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	<1c949ed0-1b88-ae6e-4e6c-426502bfab5f@redhat.com>
	<14854496-0baa-1bf6-c819-f3d7fae13c2c@redhat.com>
	<20170213104716.GM6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	<20170213105343.GJ6536@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	<3dc50409-60dd-ad47-f971-448191e66038@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <3dc50409-60dd-ad47-f971-448191e66038@redhat.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/>
List-Post: <mailto:virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>, x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>, Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Alok Kataria <akataria@vmware.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org

On 02/13/2017 02:42 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 02/13/2017 05:53 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:47:16AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> That way we'd end up with something like:
>>>
>>> asm("
>>> push %rdi;
>>> movslq %edi, %rdi;
>>> movq __per_cpu_offset(,%rdi,8), %rax;
>>> cmpb $0, %[offset](%rax);
>>> setne %al;
>>> pop %rdi;
>>> " : : [offset] "i" (((unsigned long)&steal_time) + offsetof(struct steal_time, preempted)));
>>>
>>> And if we could get rid of the sign extend on edi we could avoid all the
>>> push-pop nonsense, but I'm not sure I see how to do that (then again,
>>> this asm foo isn't my strongest point).
>> Maybe:
>>
>> movsql %edi, %rax;
>> movq __per_cpu_offset(,%rax,8), %rax;
>> cmpb $0, %[offset](%rax);
>> setne %al;
>>
>> ?
> Yes, that looks good to me.
>
> Cheers,
> Longman
>
Sorry, I am going to take it back. The displacement or offset can only
be up to 32-bit. So we will still need to use at least one more
register, I think.

Cheers,
Longman