[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5245E6DB.4000401@tilera.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:13:15 -0400
From: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tile: use a more conservative __my_cpu_offset in CONFIG_PREEMPT
On 9/26/2013 1:57 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 06:24:53PM +0100, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>> [...]
>> +static inline unsigned long __my_cpu_offset(void)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long tp;
>> + register unsigned long *sp asm("sp");
>> + asm("move %0, tp" : "=r" (tp) : "m" (*sp));
>> + return tp;
>> +}
> Hehe, nice to see this hack working out for you too. One thing to check is
> whether you have any funky addressing modes (things like writeback or
> post-increment), since the "m" constraint can bite you if you don't actually
> use it in the asm.
Well, we do have post increments, though I don't see why this is a problem here.
We define a target specific constraint "U" that excludes post-increments, but
again I don't see why "m" would cause trouble here. What was your experience?
--
Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp.
http://www.tilera.com
--
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