[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZQnCiZuMbFnwbEUt@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 16:47:21 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc: Greg Ungerer <gregungerer@...tnet.com.au>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/17] m68k: Implement xor_unlock_is_negative_byte
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 03:22:25PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > Anyway, that's not the brief. We're looking to (eg) clear bit 0
> > and test whether bit 7 was set. So it's the sign bit of the byte,
> > not the sign bit of the int.
>
> Use the address of the byte as an int and xor with 1u<<24.
> The xor will do a rmw on the three bytes following, but I
> doubt that matters.
Bet you a shiny penny that Coldfire takes an unaligned access trap ...
and besides, this is done on _every_ call to unlock_page(). That might
cross not only a cacheline boundary but also a page boundary. I cannot
believe that would be a high-performing solution. It might be just fine
on m68000 but I bet even by the 030 it's lower performing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists