[PATCH v2] powerpc: slightly improve cache helpers
segher at kernel.crashing.org
Thu Jul 25 23:22:32 AEST 2019
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 09:21:53AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel.crashing.org> writes:
> >> 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
Heh. 0 out of 12 is small.
It actually is quite easy to do trigger the macros to generate two-reg
dcb* instructions; but all the places where that is especially useful,
in loops for example, already use hand-written assembler code (and yes,
using two-reg forms).
You probably will not want to write those routines as plain C ever
given how important those are for performance (memset, clear-a-page),
so the dcb* macros won't ever be very hot, oh well.
> >> So my inclination is to revert the original patch. We can try again in a
> >> few years :D
> >> Thoughts?
> > 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