From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
Cc: nathanl@linux.ibm.com, arnd@arndb.de, x86@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
luto@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, vincenzo.frascino@arm.com,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/11] powerpc: switch VDSO to C implementation.
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 11:27:32 -0600
Message-ID: <20200120172732.GC3191@gate.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4b0e5941-c37e-3c85-3809-45f33ce35657@c-s.fr>
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 06:08:23PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Not easy I think.
>
> First we have the unavoidable ASM entry function that can't be dropped
> because of the CR[SO] bit the set on error or clear on no error and that
> can't be done in C.
Yup.
> In our ASM VDSO, fixed shifts are used, while in generic C VDSO, shifts
> are generic and read from the VDSO data.
Does that cost more than just a few cycles?
> And there is still some funny code generated by GCC (8.1), like:
>
> 620: 7d 29 3c 30 srw r9,r9,r7
> 624: 21 87 00 20 subfic r12,r7,32
> 628: 7d 07 3c 31 srw. r7,r8,r7
> 62c: 7d 08 60 30 slw r8,r8,r12
> 630: 7d 0b 4b 78 or r11,r8,r9
(This can be done cheaper for fixed shifts, you can use rlwimi then).
> 634: 39 40 00 00 li r10,0
> 638: 40 82 00 84 bne 6bc <__c_kernel_clock_gettime+0x114>
> 63c: 81 23 00 24 lwz r9,36(r3)
> 640: 81 05 00 00 lwz r8,0(r5)
> ...
> 6bc: 7d 69 5b 78 mr r9,r11
> 6c0: 7c ea 3b 78 mr r10,r7
> 6c4: 7d 2b 4b 78 mr r11,r9
> 6c8: 4b ff ff 74 b 63c <__c_kernel_clock_gettime+0x94>
>
> This branch to 6bc is totally useless:
> - copying r11 into r9 is pointless as r9 is overwritten in 63c
> - copying back r9 into r11 is pointless as r11 has not been modified
> inbetween.
Yeah, huh, how did that happen.
> - loading r10 with 0 then overwritting r10 with r7 when r7 is not 0 is
> pointless as well, could have directly put the result of srw. in r10.
This may be harder to make the compiler do.
But the r9/r11 thing suggests you are preventing optimisation somewhere,
maybe with some asm? Do you have some small testcase I can compile?
Segher
prev parent reply index
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-16 17:58 Christophe Leroy
2020-01-16 17:58 ` [RFC PATCH v4 01/11] powerpc/64: Don't provide time functions in compat VDSO32 Christophe Leroy
2020-01-16 17:58 ` [RFC PATCH v4 02/11] powerpc/vdso: Switch VDSO to generic C implementation Christophe Leroy
2020-01-16 17:58 ` [RFC PATCH v4 03/11] lib: vdso: only read hrtimer_res when needed in __cvdso_clock_getres() Christophe Leroy
2020-01-16 17:58 ` [RFC PATCH v4 04/11] powerpc/vdso: simplify __get_datapage() Christophe Leroy
2020-01-16 17:58 ` [RFC PATCH v4 05/11] lib: vdso: allow arches to provide vdso data pointer Christophe Leroy
2020-01-16 17:58 ` [RFC PATCH v4 06/11] powerpc/vdso: provide inline alternative to __get_datapage() Christophe Leroy
2020-01-16 17:58 ` [RFC PATCH v4 07/11] powerpc/vdso: provide vdso data pointer from the ASM caller Christophe Leroy
2020-01-16 17:58 ` [RFC PATCH v4 08/11] lib: vdso: allow fixed clock mode Christophe Leroy
2020-01-16 20:13 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-01-16 20:19 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-01-16 21:07 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-01-16 17:58 ` [RFC PATCH v4 09/11] powerpc/vdso: override __arch_vdso_capable() Christophe Leroy
2020-01-16 17:58 ` [RFC PATCH v4 10/11] lib: vdso: Allow arches to override the ns shift operation Christophe Leroy
2020-01-16 19:47 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-01-16 19:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-01-16 20:20 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-01-29 7:14 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-01-29 7:26 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-16 17:58 ` [RFC PATCH v4 11/11] powerpc/32: provide vdso_shift_ns() Christophe Leroy
2020-01-17 8:58 ` [RFC PATCH v4 00/11] powerpc: switch VDSO to C implementation Segher Boessenkool
2020-01-17 9:26 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-20 14:56 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-20 15:19 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-01-20 17:08 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-20 17:27 ` Segher Boessenkool [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200120172732.GC3191@gate.crashing.org \
--to=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=nathanl@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vincenzo.frascino@arm.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
LinuxPPC-Dev Archive on lore.kernel.org
Archives are clonable:
git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/0 linuxppc-dev/git/0.git
# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
public-inbox-init -V2 linuxppc-dev linuxppc-dev/ https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev \
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
public-inbox-index linuxppc-dev
Example config snippet for mirrors
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.ozlabs.lists.linuxppc-dev
AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git