Alan Modra amodra at bigpond.net.au
Wed Dec 31 09:18:32 EST 2003

On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 04:29:55PM +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> static inline void _raw_spin_lock(spinlock_t *lock)
> {
>         unsigned long tmp;
>         asm volatile(
> "1:     ldarx           %0,0,%1         # spin_lock\n\
>         cmpdi           0,%0,0\n\
>         bne-            2f\n\
>         stdcx.          13,0,%1\n\
>         bne-            1b\n\
>         isync\n\
>         .subsection 1\n\
> 2:"
>         HMT_LOW
> "       mflr            %0\n\
>         bl              .splpar_spinlock\n"
> "       ldx             %0,0,%1\n\
>         cmpdi           0,%0,0\n\
>         bne-            2b\n"
>         HMT_MEDIUM
> "       b               1b\n\
>         .previous"
>         : "=&r"(tmp)
>         : "r"(&lock->lock)
>         : "cr0", "memory");
> }

You might want to restore lr somewhere in there, unless there's
something magic about those FTR_SECTION macros.  :)

Do you really want to tell gcc that all memory is potentially changed
by _raw_spin_lock?  Hmm, I guess if you're accessing something
protected by a lock then you want to say that old values of the
"something" are stale.  However, I think it would be better to
explicitly say that &lock->lock is an output of the asm, rather than
relying on the "memory" clobber to do that.

Also, you might find it a little tricky to write splpar_spinlock.  The
problem is that you can't use any registers (since you haven't told
gcc about any), and you'll need to be careful about using the stack.
If _raw_spin_lock is called from a leaf function foo, then gcc may not
set up a stack frame for foo.  As per the ABI, gcc may use 288 bytes
below r1 as scratch that isn't saved over calls.  Since you haven't
told gcc that you're making a call, you need to skip this area if
using the stack in splpar_spinlock.

I wonder if you wouldn't do better by making _raw_spin_lock a function
written in asm.  OK, that would mean the overhead of a function call,
but I reckon many people forget that inline code blows icache, which
probably hurts more..

Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre

** Sent via the linuxppc64-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

More information about the Linuxppc64-dev mailing list