[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1f5a7975-3b32-3a14-e03e-7c875df57aa3@c-s.fr>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 07:50:00 +0200
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, npiggin@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/uaccess: Use flexible addressing with
__put_user()/__get_user()
Hi,
Le 16/04/2020 à 00:06, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 09:20:26AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> At the time being, __put_user()/__get_user() and friends only use
>> register indirect with immediate index addressing, with the index
>> set to 0. Ex:
>>
>> lwz reg1, 0(reg2)
>
> This is called a "D-form" instruction, or sometimes "offset addressing".
> Don't talk about an "index", it confuses things, because the *other*
> kind is called "indexed" already, also in the ISA docs! (X-form, aka
> indexed addressing, [reg+reg], where D-form does [reg+imm], and both
> forms can do [reg]).
In the "Programming Environments Manual for 32-Bit Implementations of
the PowerPC™ Architecture", they list the following addressing modes:
Load and store operations have three categories of effective address
generation that depend on the
operands specified:
• Register indirect with immediate index mode
• Register indirect with index mode
• Register indirect mode
>
>> Give the compiler the opportunity to use other adressing modes
>> whenever possible, to get more optimised code.
>
> Great :-)
>
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h
>> @@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ extern long __put_user_bad(void);
>> */
>> #define __put_user_asm(x, addr, err, op) \
>> __asm__ __volatile__( \
>> - "1: " op " %1,0(%2) # put_user\n" \
>> + "1: " op "%U2%X2 %1,%2 # put_user\n" \
>> "2:\n" \
>> ".section .fixup,\"ax\"\n" \
>> "3: li %0,%3\n" \
>> @@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ extern long __put_user_bad(void);
>> ".previous\n" \
>> EX_TABLE(1b, 3b) \
>> : "=r" (err) \
>> - : "r" (x), "b" (addr), "i" (-EFAULT), "0" (err))
>> + : "r" (x), "m" (*addr), "i" (-EFAULT), "0" (err))
>
> %Un on an "m" operand doesn't do much: you need to make it "m<>" if you
> want pre-modify ("update") insns to be generated. (You then will want
> to make sure that operand is used in a way GCC can understand; since it
> is used only once here, that works fine).
Ah ? Indeed I got the idea from include/asm/io.h where there is:
#define DEF_MMIO_IN_D(name, size, insn) \
static inline u##size name(const volatile u##size __iomem *addr) \
{ \
u##size ret; \
__asm__ __volatile__("sync;"#insn"%U1%X1 %0,%1;twi 0,%0,0;isync"\
: "=r" (ret) : "m" (*addr) : "memory"); \
return ret; \
}
It should be "m<>" there as well ?
>
>> @@ -130,8 +130,8 @@ extern long __put_user_bad(void);
>> #else /* __powerpc64__ */
>> #define __put_user_asm2(x, addr, err) \
>> __asm__ __volatile__( \
>> - "1: stw %1,0(%2)\n" \
>> - "2: stw %1+1,4(%2)\n" \
>> + "1: stw%U2%X2 %1,%2\n" \
>> + "2: stw%U2%X2 %L1,%L2\n" \
>> "3:\n" \
>> ".section .fixup,\"ax\"\n" \
>> "4: li %0,%3\n" \
>> @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ extern long __put_user_bad(void);
>> EX_TABLE(1b, 4b) \
>> EX_TABLE(2b, 4b) \
>> : "=r" (err) \
>> - : "r" (x), "b" (addr), "i" (-EFAULT), "0" (err))
>> + : "r" (x), "m" (*addr), "i" (-EFAULT), "0" (err))
>
> Here, it doesn't work. You don't want two consecutive update insns in
> any case. Easiest is to just not use "m<>", and then, don't use %Un
> (which won't do anything, but it is confusing).
Can't we leave the Un on the second stw ?
>
> Same for the reads.
>
> Rest looks fine, and update should be good with that fixed as said.
>
> Reviewed-by: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
>
>
> Segher
>
Thanks for the review
Christophe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists