linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] preempt

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:29:22 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] preempt_count rework -v2

On 09/11/2013 06:13 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 02:43:06PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> That said, looking at your patch, I get the *very* strong feeling that
>> we could make a macro that does all the repetitions for us, and then
>> have a
>>
>>   GENERATE_RMW(atomic_sub_and_test, LOCK_PREFIX "subl", "e", "")
> 
> The below seems to compile..
> 
> +
> +#define GENERATE_ADDcc(var, val, lock, cc)				\
> +do {									\
> +	const int add_ID__ = (__builtin_constant_p(val) &&		\
> +			((val) == 1 || (val) == -1)) ? (val) : 0;	\
> +									\
> +	switch (sizeof(var)) {						\
> +	case 4:								\
> +		if (add_ID__ == 1) {					\
> +			asm volatile goto(lock "incl %0;"		\
> +					  "j" cc " %l[cc_label]"	\
> +					  : : "m" (var)			\
> +					  : "memory" : cc_label);	\
> +		} else if (add_ID__ == -1) {				\
> +			asm volatile goto(lock "decl %0;"		\
> +					  "j" cc " %l[cc_label]"	\
> +					  : : "m" (var)			\
> +					  : "memory" : cc_label);	\
> +		} else {						\
> +			asm volatile goto(lock "addl %1, %0;"		\
> +					  "j" cc " %l[cc_label]"	\
> +					  : : "m" (var), "er" (val)	\
> +					  : "memory" : cc_label);	\
> +		}							\
> +		break;							\
> +									\
> +	case 8:								\
> +		if (add_ID__ == 1) {					\
> +			asm volatile goto(lock "incq %0;"		\
> +					  "j" cc " %l[cc_label]"	\
> +					  : : "m" (var)			\
> +					  : "memory" : cc_label);	\
> +		} else if (add_ID__ == -1) {				\
> +			asm volatile goto(lock "decq %0;"		\
> +					  "j" cc " %l[cc_label]"	\
> +					  : : "m" (var)			\
> +					  : "memory" : cc_label);	\
> +		} else {						\
> +			asm volatile goto(lock "addq %1, %0;"		\
> +					  "j" cc " %l[cc_label]"	\
> +					  : : "m" (var), "er" (val)	\
> +					  : "memory" : cc_label);	\
> +		}							\
> +		break;							\
> +									\

At least in the "asm goto" case you can use:

	lock "add%z0 %1,%0;"

... and skip the switch statement.

There was a bug in some old (gcc 3.x?) early x86-64 versions which would
treat %z0 as if it was %Z0 which means it would emit "ll" instead of "q"
but that doesn't apply to any gcc which has "asm goto"...

	-hpa


--
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/