[PATCH] powerpc: optimise WARN_ON()
Christophe Leroy
christophe.leroy at c-s.fr
Mon Aug 19 15:40:42 AEST 2019
Le 18/08/2019 à 14:01, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 09:04:42AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> Unlike BUG_ON(x), WARN_ON(x) uses !!(x) as the trigger
>> of the t(d/w)nei instruction instead of using directly the
>> value of x.
>>
>> This leads to GCC adding unnecessary pair of addic/subfe.
>
> And it has to, it is passed as an "r" to an asm, GCC has to put the "!!"
> value into a register.
>
>> By using (x) instead of !!(x) like BUG_ON() does, the additional
>> instructions go away:
>
> But is it correct? What happens if you pass an int to WARN_ON, on a
> 64-bit kernel?
On a 64-bit kernel, an int is still in a 64-bit register, so there would
be no problem with tdnei, would it ? an int 0 is the same as an long 0,
right ?
It is on 32-bit kernel that I see a problem, if one passes a long long
to WARN_ON(), the forced cast to long will just drop the upper size of
it. So as of today, BUG_ON() is buggy for that.
>
> (You might want to have 64-bit generate either tw or td. But, with
> your __builtin_trap patch, all that will be automatic).
>
Yes I'll discard this patch and focus on the __builtin_trap() one which
should solve most issues.
Christophe
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list