mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jose Abreu <jose.abreu@synopsys.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
	"open list:SYNOPSYS ARC ARCHITECTURE" 
	<linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Vineet Gupta <vineet.gupta1@synopsys.com>,
	<alexey.brodkin@synopsys.com>,
	Joao Pinto <joao.pinto@synopsys.com>,
	"Vitor Soares" <vitor.soares@synopsys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARC: io.h: Implement reads{x}()/writes{x}()
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 08:56:53 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <57437493-31bb-eced-032c-1f54470b030e@synopsys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a2U3ft3crF2SiAuc=PQdDooEUaVAN9gQDyxsxvBn5+xRw@mail.gmail.com>

On 29-11-2018 21:20, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 5:14 PM Jose Abreu <jose.abreu@synopsys.com> wrote:
>
>> --->8--
>> static noinline void test_readsl(char *buf, int len)
>> {
>>         readsl(0xdeadbeef, buf, len);
>> }
>> --->8---
>>
>> And the disassembly:
>> --->8---
>> 00000e88 <test_readsl>:
>>  e88:    breq.dr1,0,eac <0xeac>        /* if (count) */
>>  e8c:    and r2,r0,3
>>
>>  e90:    mov_s lp_count,r1            /* r1 = count */
>>  e92:    brne r2,0,eb0 <0xeb0>        /* if (bptr % ((t) / 8)) */
>>
>>  e96:    sub r0,r0,4
>>  e9a:    nop_s
>>
>>  e9c:    lp eac <0xeac>                /* first loop */
>>  ea0:    ld r2,[0xdeadbeef]
>>  ea8:    st.a r2,[r0,4]
>>  eac:    j_s [blink]
>>  eae:    nop_s
>>
>>  eb0:    lp ed6 <0xed6>                /* second loop */
>>  eb4:    ld r2,[0xdeadbeef]
>>  ebc:    lsr r5,r2,8
>>  ec0:    lsr r4,r2,16
>>  ec4:    lsr r3,r2,24
>>  ec8:    stb_s r2,[r0,0]
>>  eca:    stb r5,[r0,1]
>>  ece:    stb r4,[r0,2]
>>  ed2:    stb_s r3,[r0,3]
>>  ed4:    add_s r0,r0,4
>>  ed6:    j_s [blink]
>>
>> --->8---
>>
>> See how the if condition added in this version is checked in
>> <test_readsl+0xe92> and then it takes two different loops.
> This looks good to me. I wonder what the result is for CPUs
> that /do/ support unaligned accesses. Normally put_unaligned()
> should fall back to a simple store in that case, but I'm not
> sure it can fold the two stores back into one and skip the
> alignment check. Probably not worth overoptimizing for that
> case (the MMIO access latency should be much higher than
> anything you could gain here), but I'm still curious about
> how well our get/put_unaligned macros work.

Here is disassembly for an ARC CPU that supports unaligned accesses:

-->8---
00000d48 <test_readsl>:
 d48:    breq_s r1,0,28            /* if (count) */
 d4a:    tst    r0,0x3
 d4e:    bne_s 32                /* if (bptr % ((t) / 8)) */
 
 d50:    ld r2,[0xdeadbeef]        /* first loop */
 d58:    sub_s r1,r1,0x1
 d5a:    tst_s r1,r1
 d5c:    bne.d -12
 d60:    st.ab r2,[r0,4]
 
 d64:    dmb    0x1                    /* common exit point */
 d68:    j_s    [blink]
 d6a:    nop_s
 
 d6c:    ld r2,[0xdeadbeef]        /* second loop */
 d74:    sub_s r1,r1,0x1
 d76:    tst_s r1,r1
 d78:    bne.d -12
 d7c:    st.ab r2,[r0,4]

 d80:    b_s -28                    /* jmp to 0xd64 */
 d82:    nop_s
--->8---

Notice how first and second loop are exactly equal ...

Thanks and Best Regards,
Jose Miguel Abreu

>
>        Arnd


  reply	other threads:[~2018-11-30  8:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-11-29 14:29 Jose Abreu
2018-11-29 14:38 ` David Laight
2018-11-29 14:42   ` Jose Abreu
2018-11-29 16:13     ` Jose Abreu
2018-11-29 21:20       ` Arnd Bergmann
2018-11-30  8:56         ` Jose Abreu [this message]
2018-11-30 13:44           ` Arnd Bergmann
2018-11-30 13:57             ` David Laight
2018-11-30 19:00               ` Vineet Gupta
2018-12-03 10:10                 ` David Laight
2018-12-03 17:31                   ` Vineet Gupta
2018-11-29 21:16 ` Vineet Gupta

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=57437493-31bb-eced-032c-1f54470b030e@synopsys.com \
    --to=jose.abreu@synopsys.com \
    --cc=David.Laight@aculab.com \
    --cc=alexey.brodkin@synopsys.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=joao.pinto@synopsys.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=vineet.gupta1@synopsys.com \
    --cc=vitor.soares@synopsys.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®