RE: [PATCH] x86: bitops: fix build regression

From: hpa@zytor.com
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>,
	stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>,
	"kernelci . org bot" <bot@kernelci.org>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>,
	Ilie Halip <ilie.halip@gmail.com>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net>,
	Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
	Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86: bitops: fix build regression
Date: Sun, 10 May 2020 05:33:48 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <216F48DF-7DB5-4F0F-8072-10DBF2F70612@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b1072e7116774e0c9e6e7e6f55bae4a3@AcuMS.aculab.com>

On May 10, 2020 4:59:17 AM PDT, David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM> wrote:
>From: Peter Anvin
>> Sent: 08 May 2020 18:32
>> On 2020-05-08 10:21, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>> >>
>> >> One last suggestion.  Add the "b" modifier to the mask operand:
>"orb
>> >> %b1, %0".  That forces the compiler to use the 8-bit register name
>> >> instead of trying to deduce the width from the input.
>> >
>> > Ah right:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html#x86Operandmodifiers
>> >
>> > Looks like that works for both compilers.  In that case, we can
>likely
>> > drop the `& 0xff`, too.  Let me play with that, then I'll hopefully
>> > send a v3 today.
>> >
>> 
>> Good idea. I requested a while ago that they document these
>modifiers; they
>> chose not to document them all which in some ways is good; it shows
>what they
>> are willing to commit to indefinitely.
>
>I thought the intention here was to explicitly do a byte access.
>If the constant bit number has had a div/mod by 8 done on it then
>the address can be misaligned - so you mustn't do a non-byte sized
>locked access.
>
>OTOH the original base address must be aligned.
>
>Looking at some instruction timing, BTS/BTR aren't too bad if the
>bit number is a constant. But are 6 or 7 clocks slower if it is in %cl.
>Given these are locked RMW bus cycles they'll always be slow!
>
>How about an asm multi-part alternative that uses a byte offset
>and byte constant if the compiler thinks the mask is constant
>or a 4-byte offset and 32bit mask if it doesn't.
>
>The other alternative is to just use BTS/BTS and (maybe) rely on the
>assembler to add in the word offset to the base address.
>
>	David
>
>-
>Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes,
>MK1 1PT, UK
>Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)

I don't understand what you are getting at here.

The intent is to do a byte access. The "multi-part asm" you are talking about is also already there...
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.