[musl] Powerpc Linux 'scv' system call ABI proposal take 2

[David Laight]

From: Nicholas Piggin
> Sent: 20 April 2020 02:10
...
> >> Yes, but does it really matter to optimize this specific usage case
> >> for size? glibc, for instance, tries to leverage the syscall mechanism
> >> by adding some complex pre-processor asm directives.  It optimizes
> >> the syscall code size in most cases.  For instance, kill in static case
> >> generates on x86_64:
> >>
> >> 0000000000000000 <__kill>:
> >>    0:   b8 3e 00 00 00          mov    $0x3e,%eax
> >>    5:   0f 05                   syscall
> >>    7:   48 3d 01 f0 ff ff       cmp    $0xfffffffffffff001,%rax
> >>    d:   0f 83 00 00 00 00       jae    13 <__kill+0x13>

Hmmm... that cmp + jae is unnecessary here.
It is also a 32bit offset jump.
I also suspect it gets predicted very badly.

> >>   13:   c3                      retq
> >>
> >> While on musl:
> >>
> >> 0000000000000000 <kill>:
> >>    0:	48 83 ec 08          	sub    $0x8,%rsp
> >>    4:	48 63 ff             	movslq %edi,%rdi
> >>    7:	48 63 f6             	movslq %esi,%rsi
> >>    a:	b8 3e 00 00 00       	mov    $0x3e,%eax
> >>    f:	0f 05                	syscall
> >>   11:	48 89 c7             	mov    %rax,%rdi
> >>   14:	e8 00 00 00 00       	callq  19 <kill+0x19>
> >>   19:	5a                   	pop    %rdx
> >>   1a:	c3                   	retq
> >
> > Wow that's some extraordinarily bad codegen going on by gcc... The
> > sign-extension is semantically needed and I don't see a good way
> > around it (glibc's asm is kinda a hack taking advantage of kernel not
> > looking at high bits, I think), but the gratuitous stack adjustment
> > and refusal to generate a tail call isn't. I'll see if we can track
> > down what's going on and get it fixed.

A suitable cast might get rid of the sign extension.
Possibly just (unsigned int).

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)