[PATCH v2] powerpc: slightly improve cache helpers
mpe at ellerman.id.au
Tue Jul 23 09:21:53 AEST 2019
Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel.crashing.org> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 08:15:14PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel.crashing.org> writes:
>> > 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.
>> So it seems like this is a clang bug.
>> None of the distros we support use clang, but we would still like to
>> keep it working if we can.
> Which version? Which versions *are* broken?
AFAIK clang 8 is the first version that we could build with, without
>> Looking at the original patch, the only upside is that the compiler
>> can use both RA and RB to compute the address, rather than us forcing RA
>> to 0.
>> But at least with my compiler here (GCC 8 vintage) I don't actually see
>> GCC ever using both GPRs even with the patch. Or at least, there's no
>> difference before/after the patch as far as I can see.
> The benefit is small, certainly.
Zero is small, but I guess some things are smaller? :P
>> So my inclination is to revert the original patch. We can try again in a
>> few years :D
> I think you should give the clang people time to figure out what is
> going on.
Yeah fair enough, will wait and see what their diagnosis is.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev