[PATCH 7/8] powerpc/64s: idle do not hold reservation longer than required

[Nicholas Piggin]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 18:13:28 +0530
Gautham R Shenoy <ego at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> Hi Nick,
> 
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 07:23:48PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > When taking the core idle state lock, grab it immediately like a
> > regular lock, rather than adding more tests in there. Holding the lock
> > keeps it stable, so there is no need to do it whole holding the
> > reservation.  
> 
> I agree with this patch. Just a minor query
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin at gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/powerpc/kernel/idle_book3s.S | 20 +++++++++++---------
> >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/idle_book3s.S b/arch/powerpc/kernel/idle_book3s.S
> > index 1c91dc35c559..3cb75907c5c5 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/idle_book3s.S
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/idle_book3s.S
> > @@ -488,12 +488,12 @@ BEGIN_FTR_SECTION
> >  	CHECK_HMI_INTERRUPT
> >  END_FTR_SECTION_IFSET(CPU_FTR_HVMODE)
> > 
> > -	lbz	r7,PACA_THREAD_MASK(r13)
> >  	ld	r14,PACA_CORE_IDLE_STATE_PTR(r13)
> > -lwarx_loop2:
> > -	lwarx	r15,0,r14
> > -	andis.	r9,r15,PNV_CORE_IDLE_LOCK_BIT at h
> > +	lbz	r7,PACA_THREAD_MASK(r13)  
> 
> Is reversing the order of loads into r7 and r14 intentional?

Oh, yes I guess it is because we use r14 result first. I should have
mentioned it but I forgot about it. Probably they decode together,
but you might get them in different cycles.

Thanks for the review!

Thanks,
Nick