[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090703122710.GC7161@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:27:10 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
paulus@...ba.org, arnd@...db.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] FRV: Implement atomic64_t
* Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> My last suggestion would be :
>
> static inline unsigned long long atomic64_read(const atomic64_t *ptr)
> {
> unsigned long long res;
>
> asm volatile(
> "mov %%ebx, %%eax\n\t"
> "mov %%ecx, %%edx\n\t"
> LOCK_PREFIX "cmpxchg8b %1\n"
> : "=A" (res)
> : "m" (*ptr)
> );
> return res;
> }
>
> ebx/ecx being read only, and their value can be random, they are
> not even mentioned in asm constraints, so gcc is allowed to keep
> useful values in these registers.
>
> So the following (stupid) example
>
> for (i = 0; i < 10000000; i++) {
> res += atomic64_read(&myvar);
> }
>
> gives :
> xorl %esi, %esi
> .L2:
> mov %ebx, %eax
> mov %ecx, %edx
> lock;cmpxchg8b myvar
> addl %eax, %ecx
> adcl %edx, %ebx
> addl $1, %esi
> cmpl $10000000, %esi
> jne .L2
Ok, agreed. We dont want to inline it - cmpxchg8b is way too fat -
but your code above is a valid optimization for the out-of-line
variant as well. So i have applied it as such, will post the whole
atomic64_t series soon, after some testing.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists