[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140509183241.GA4491@samfundet.no>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 20:32:41 +0200
From: Hans-Christian Egtvedt <egtvedt@...fundet.no>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...nel.org, will.deacon@....com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/20] arch,avr32: Fold atomic_ops
Around Thu 08 May 2014 15:58:46 +0200 or thereabout, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Many of the atomic op implementations are the same except for one
> instruction; fold the lot into a few CPP macros and reduce LoC.
The add and sub atomic operations are not 100% the same. Sub has more
constraints on the integer size than add. Sub only takes a signed 21-bit
integer, while add can do 32-bit additions IIRC correctly the instructions
for AVR32.
This is why you see in atomic_sub_return() that i is typed as "rKs21", while
in atomic_add_return, i is typed "r".
Your change limits both atomic operations to work only on signed 21-bit
integers.
> This also prepares for easy addition of new ops.
>
> Requires the asm_op because of eor.
>
> Cc: Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...il.com>
> Cc: Hans-Christian Egtvedt <egtvedt@...fundet.no>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> ---
> arch/avr32/include/asm/atomic.h | 96 ++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/arch/avr32/include/asm/atomic.h
> +++ b/arch/avr32/include/asm/atomic.h
> @@ -22,58 +22,52 @@
> #define atomic_read(v) (*(volatile int *)&(v)->counter)
> #define atomic_set(v, i) (((v)->counter) = i)
>
> -/*
> - * atomic_sub_return - subtract the atomic variable
> - * @i: integer value to subtract
> - * @v: pointer of type atomic_t
> - *
> - * Atomically subtracts @i from @v. Returns the resulting value.
> - */
> -static inline int atomic_sub_return(int i, atomic_t *v)
> -{
> - int result;
> -
> - asm volatile(
> - "/* atomic_sub_return */\n"
> - "1: ssrf 5\n"
> - " ld.w %0, %2\n"
> - " sub %0, %3\n"
> - " stcond %1, %0\n"
> - " brne 1b"
> - : "=&r"(result), "=o"(v->counter)
> - : "m"(v->counter), "rKs21"(i)
> - : "cc");
> -
> - return result;
> +#define ATOMIC_OP(op, asm_op) \
> +static inline void atomic_##op(int i, atomic_t *v) \
> +{ \
> + int result; \
> + \
> + asm volatile( \
> + "/* atomic_" #op " */\n" \
> + "1: ssrf 5\n" \
> + " ld.w %0, %2\n" \
> + " " #asm_op " %0, %3\n" \
> + " stcond %1, %0\n" \
> + " brne 1b" \
> + : "=&r"(result), "=o"(v->counter) \
> + : "m"(v->counter), "rKs21"(i) \
All variable i integers are limited to signed 21-bit here.
> + : "cc"); \
> +} \
> +
> +#define ATOMIC_OP_RETURN(op, asm_op) \
> +static inline int atomic_##op##_return(int i, atomic_t *v) \
> +{ \
> + int result; \
> + \
> + asm volatile( \
> + "/* atomic_" #op "_return */\n" \
> + "1: ssrf 5\n" \
> + " ld.w %0, %2\n" \
> + " " #asm_op " %0, %3\n" \
> + " stcond %1, %0\n" \
> + " brne 1b" \
> + : "=&r"(result), "=o"(v->counter) \
> + : "m"(v->counter), "rKs21"(i) \
Same here.
> + : "cc"); \
> + \
> + return result; \
> }
>
> -/*
> - * atomic_add_return - add integer to atomic variable
> - * @i: integer value to add
> - * @v: pointer of type atomic_t
> - *
> - * Atomically adds @i to @v. Returns the resulting value.
> - */
> -static inline int atomic_add_return(int i, atomic_t *v)
> -{
> - int result;
> -
> - if (__builtin_constant_p(i) && (i >= -1048575) && (i <= 1048576))
> - result = atomic_sub_return(-i, v);
I do not recall why we did it like this any more, I would assume both sub and
add to be single cycle instructions.
> - else
> - asm volatile(
> - "/* atomic_add_return */\n"
> - "1: ssrf 5\n"
> - " ld.w %0, %1\n"
> - " add %0, %3\n"
> - " stcond %2, %0\n"
> - " brne 1b"
> - : "=&r"(result), "=o"(v->counter)
> - : "m"(v->counter), "r"(i)
> - : "cc", "memory");
> -
> - return result;
> -}
> +#define ATOMIC_OPS(op, asm_op) \
> + ATOMIC_OP(op, asm_op) \
> + ATOMIC_OP_RETURN(op, asm_op)
> +
> +ATOMIC_OPS(add, add)
> +ATOMIC_OPS(sub, sub)
> +
> +#undef ATOMIC_OPS
> +#undef ATOMIC_OP_RETURN
> +#undef ATOMIC_OP
>
> /*
> * atomic_sub_unless - sub unless the number is a given value
> @@ -168,8 +162,6 @@ static inline int atomic_sub_if_positive
> #define atomic_xchg(v, new) (xchg(&((v)->counter), new))
> #define atomic_cmpxchg(v, o, n) (cmpxchg(&((v)->counter), (o), (n)))
>
> -#define atomic_sub(i, v) (void)atomic_sub_return(i, v)
> -#define atomic_add(i, v) (void)atomic_add_return(i, v)
> #define atomic_dec(v) atomic_sub(1, (v))
> #define atomic_inc(v) atomic_add(1, (v))
I like the simplification, do you manage to preprocessor both instruction and
instruction argument limit?
--
Best regards,
Hans-Christian Egtvedt
--
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