[PATCH v2] powerpc: slightly improve cache helpers

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 07:41:40PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> Hi Segher,
> 
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 01:01:50PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 12:58:46AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > > 0000017c clear_user_page:
> > >      17c: 94 21 ff f0                  	stwu 1, -16(1)
> > >      180: 38 80 00 80                  	li 4, 128
> > >      184: 38 63 ff e0                  	addi 3, 3, -32
> > >      188: 7c 89 03 a6                  	mtctr 4
> > >      18c: 38 81 00 0f                  	addi 4, 1, 15
> > >      190: 8c c3 00 20                  	lbzu 6, 32(3)
> > >      194: 98 c1 00 0f                  	stb 6, 15(1)
> > >      198: 7c 00 27 ec                  	dcbz 0, 4
> > >      19c: 42 00 ff f4                  	bdnz .+65524
> > 
> > Uh, yeah, well, I have no idea what clang tried here, but that won't
> > work.  It's copying a byte from each target cache line to the stack,
> > and then does clears the cache line containing that byte on the stack.
> > 
> > I *guess* this is about "Z" and not about "%y", but you'll have to ask
> > the clang people.
> > 
> > Or it may be that they do not treat inline asm operands as lvalues
> > properly?  That rings some bells.  Yeah that looks like it.

The code is
  __asm__ __volatile__ ("dcbz %y0" : : "Z"(*(u8 *)addr) : "memory");

so yeah it looks like clang took that  *(u8 *)addr  as rvalue, and
stored that in stack, and then used *that* as memory.

Maybe clang simply does not not to treat "Z" the same as "m"?  (And "Y"
and "Q" and "es" and a whole bunch of "w*", what about those?)


Segher