From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:36:11 +1000 From: Paul Mackerras To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Subject: Re: [PATCH -V3 09/11] arch/powerpc: Use 50 bits of VSID in slbmte Message-ID: <20120723093611.GA29264@bloggs.ozlabs.ibm.com> References: <1341839621-28332-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1341839621-28332-10-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120723000658.GH17790@bloggs.ozlabs.ibm.com> <87394ij3aa.fsf@skywalker.in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <87394ij3aa.fsf@skywalker.in.ibm.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 01:51:49PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > Paul Mackerras writes: > > > On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 06:43:39PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > >> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" > >> > >> Increase the number of valid VSID bits in slbmte instruction. > >> We will use the new bits when we increase valid VSID bits. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V > >> --- > >> arch/powerpc/mm/slb_low.S | 4 ++-- > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/slb_low.S b/arch/powerpc/mm/slb_low.S > >> index c355af6..c1fc81c 100644 > >> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/slb_low.S > >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/slb_low.S > >> @@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ _GLOBAL(slb_allocate_user) > >> */ > >> slb_finish_load: > >> ASM_VSID_SCRAMBLE(r10,r9,256M) > >> - rldimi r11,r10,SLB_VSID_SHIFT,16 /* combine VSID and flags */ > >> + rldimi r11,r10,SLB_VSID_SHIFT,2 /* combine VSID and flags */ > > > > You can't do that without either changing ASM_VSID_SCRAMBLE or masking > > the VSID it generates to 36 bits, since the logic in ASM_VSID_SCRAMBLE > > can leave non-zero bits in the high 28 bits of the result. Similarly > > for the 1T case. > > > > How about change ASM_VSID_SCRAMBLE to clear the high bits ? That would > also make it close to vsid_scramble() One more instruction in a hot path - I'd rather not. How about changing the rldimi instruction to: rldimi r11,r10,SLB_VSID_SHIFT,(64-SLB_VSID_SHIFT-VSID_BITS_256M) and similarly for the 1T case. That will give the proper masking when you change VSID_BITS_256M. Paul.