[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFULd4bSHM9j11N8b3+V8N-pQTconan53THeme4p3UR3COCTLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 17:09:07 +0200
From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>
To: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>
Cc: Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] LoongArch/percpu: Simplify _percpu_read() and _percpu_write()
On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 5:04 PM Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 8:46 PM Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 2:16 PM Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 2:09 PM Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2024-09-05 at 14:02 +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > > > > If the input value is less than 0xff, then "& 0xff" is meaningless, if
> > > > > > the input value is more than 0xff, this conversion still cannot give a
> > > > > > correct result for the caller. So I think for all sizes it is enough
> > > > > > to just use "((unsigned long) val)".
> > > > >
> > > > > This part is used to force unsigned extension, otherwise the compiler
> > > > > will use sign-extension of the possibly signed variable.
> > > >
> > > > It's not relevant. For example when size is 2 __pcpu_op_##size("stx")
> > > > is expanded to stx.h, and stx.h only stores the lower 16 bits of a
> > > > register into MEM[r21 + ptr], the high bits are ignored anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Thus we can just have
> > > >
> > > > +#define _percpu_write(size, _pcp, _val) \
> > > > +do { \
> > > > + if (0) { \
> > > > + typeof(_pcp) pto_tmp__; \
> > > > + pto_tmp__ = (_val); \
> > > > + (void)pto_tmp__; \
> > > > + } \
> > > > + __asm__ __volatile__( \
> > > > + __pcpu_op_##size("stx") "%[val], $r21, %[ptr] \n" \
> > > > + : \
> > > > + : [val] "r"(_val), [ptr] "r"(&(_pcp)) \
> > > > + : "memory"); \
> > > > +} while (0)
> > >
> > > Nice, the less code, the better. If it works for loongson target, then
> > > we don't need this paranoia.
> > >
> > > I just played safe and took the approach that x86 took.
> >
> > Please note that the original code extended the value to a long type.
> > If the simplified macro works, then the usage of macros will result in
> > a better assembly code, where zero-extends will be omitted.
> OK, please send a simplified V4, remember to remove the if(0)
> checking, which is the same as V2, thanks.
Are you sure we want to remove type checking on _val ? I'd rather
leave the if(0) part, but remove forcing zero-extension.
Uros.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists