Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned
[Ingo Molnar - Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 05:01:27PM +0100]
|
| * Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > Checkpatch still does complain about
| > if (0) { T__ tmp__; tmp__ = (val)
| > I'm not sure if we need this line at all.
|
| that's a type-checking trick. It does not result in any generated code
| but gcc flags it with a build time warning if there's a type mismatch.
| So it's a checkpatch.pl false positive.
|
| Ingo
|
Thanks Ingo!
I'll fetch up the tree you mentoined in prev letter and next time
try to be more carefull with patches I'm sending (i'm a bit busy
with my second machine on which i'm trying to install fc8 but
anaconda hangs again and again so that is the reason I'm not sync'ed
with x86 and mm trees yet, sorry)
Cyrill
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned
* Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Checkpatch still does complain about
> if (0) { T__ tmp__; tmp__ = (val)
> I'm not sure if we need this line at all.
that's a type-checking trick. It does not result in any generated code
but gcc flags it with a build time warning if there's a type mismatch.
So it's a checkpatch.pl false positive.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned
* Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, I've tried to make a one ;) It's over last (today synced) linus
> tree.
thanks, applied :-)
Some small details: i had to hand-apply your patch to the x86.git#mm
tree (see the instructions below how to fetch that tree). It's best (for
us maintainers) if you send such cleanup patches against that tree, to
reduce patch collision risk. I have attached the final merged patch
further below.
just in case you are on the lookout for other cleanup targets, i've
attached the "code-quality" script that gives us the mechanic code
quality metric of any file or tree. For example, it nicely shows the
cleanup effects of your patch on the pda.h file:
errors lines of code errors/KLOC
include/asm-x86/pda.h [before] 23 133 172.9
include/asm-x86/pda.h [after] 1 133 7.5
if you want to pick cleanup targets from the x86 tree, do something like
this:
code-quality `find arch/x86 include/asm-x86/ -name '*.c'` | tee quality.txt
sort -n -k 4 quality.txt
Warning: some files are very hard to clean up. Ask on lkml if unsure.
The current code quality of arch/x86/ (as of x86.git#mm) is:
$ code-quality arch/x86/
errors lines of code errors/KLOC
arch/x86/ 4277 117235 36.4
And the long term goal is to achieve the output of:
code-quality kernel/sched*.[ch]
/me runs and hides ;-)
Ingo
->
git-clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git
linux-2.6.git
cd linux-2.6.git
git-branch x86
git-checkout x86
git-pull git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/x86/linux-2.6-x86.git mm
(do subsequent pulls via "git-pull --force", as we frequently rebase the
git tree. NOTE: this might override your own local changes, so do this
only if you dont mind about losing thse changes in that tree.)
--->
Subject: x86: clean up include/asm-x86/pda.h
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
clean up include/asm-x86/pda.h, as suggested by checkpatch.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
include/asm-x86/pda.h | 70 +-
1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
Index: linux-x86.q/include/asm-x86/pda.h
===
--- linux-x86.q.orig/include/asm-x86/pda.h
+++ linux-x86.q/include/asm-x86/pda.h
@@ -7,15 +7,15 @@
#include
#include
-/* Per processor datastructure. %gs points to it while the kernel runs */
+/* Per processor datastructure. %gs points to it while the kernel runs */
struct x8664_pda {
struct task_struct *pcurrent; /* 0 Current process */
unsigned long data_offset; /* 8 Per cpu data offset from linker
address */
- unsigned long kernelstack; /* 16 top of kernel stack for current */
- unsigned long oldrsp; /* 24 user rsp for system call */
-int irqcount; /* 32 Irq nesting counter. Starts with -1 */
- unsigned int cpunumber; /* 36 Logical CPU number */
+ unsigned long kernelstack; /* 16 top of kernel stack for current */
+ unsigned long oldrsp; /* 24 user rsp for system call */
+ int irqcount; /* 32 Irq nesting counter. Starts -1 */
+ unsigned int cpunumber; /* 36 Logical CPU number */
#ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
unsigned long stack_canary; /* 40 stack canary value */
/* gcc-ABI: this canary MUST be at
@@ -44,10 +44,10 @@ extern void pda_init(int);
#define cpu_pda(i) (_cpu_pda[i])
-/*
+/*
* There is no fast way to get the base address of the PDA, all the accesses
* have to mention %fs/%gs. So it needs to be done this Torvaldian way.
- */
+ */
extern void __bad_pda_field(void) __attribute__((noreturn));
/*
@@ -58,70 +58,70 @@ extern struct x8664_pda _proxy_pda;
#define pda_offset(field) offsetof(struct x8664_pda, field)
-#define pda_to_op(op,field,val) do { \
+#define pda_to_op(op, field, val) do { \
typedef typeof(_proxy_pda.field) T__; \
if (0) { T__ tmp__; tmp__ = (val); }/* type checking */ \
switch (sizeof(_proxy_pda.field)) { \
case 2: \
- asm(op "w %1,%%gs:%c2" :\
+ asm(op "w %1,%%gs:%c2" :\
"+m" (_proxy_pda.field) : \
"ri" ((T__)val),\
- "i"(pda_offset(field)));\
- break; \
+ "i"(pda_offset(field)));\
+ break; \
case 4: \
-
Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned
[Ingo Molnar - Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 03:53:17PM +0100]
|
| * Jan Beulich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > > good catch! Applied your patch to x86.git - queued it up for
| > > v2.6.25. I bet there are tons of other instances where we use signed
| > > instead of unsigned and get worse code generation.
| >
| > Yes, definitely. This patch was kind of a testing one whether this is
| > a welcome change. As it appears to be, I'll probably produce more as I
| > run into respective cases.
|
| they are definitely welcome! Especially when fields are also used in
| integer multiplications or divisions then the cost of signedness can be
| quite significant. We regularly do such int -> uint sweeps in the
| scheduler code and it's a great code size reductor.
|
| Btw., a sidenote: if you are touching files that you care about, and if
| you've got a few spare cycles, you might also want to take a look at
| checkpatch.pl output:
|
| $ scripts/checkpatch.pl --file include/asm-x86/pda.h
| ...
| total: 23 errors, 1 warnings, 133 lines checked
|
| as it might have a few low hanging fruits ripe for cleanup ;-)
|
| Ingo
|
Hi, I've tried to make a one ;) It's over last (today synced) linus tree.
Cyrill
---
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [PATCH] x86: cleanup pda.h to fulfil checkpatch
---
Checkpatch still does complain about
if (0) { T__ tmp__; tmp__ = (val)
I'm not sure if we need this line at all.
include/asm-x86/pda.h | 36 ++--
1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/asm-x86/pda.h b/include/asm-x86/pda.h
index 35962bb..00410ec 100644
--- a/include/asm-x86/pda.h
+++ b/include/asm-x86/pda.h
@@ -7,14 +7,14 @@
#include
#include
-/* Per processor datastructure. %gs points to it while the kernel runs */
+/* Per processor datastructure. %gs points to it while the kernel runs */
struct x8664_pda {
struct task_struct *pcurrent; /* 0 Current process */
unsigned long data_offset; /* 8 Per cpu data offset from linker
address */
unsigned long kernelstack; /* 16 top of kernel stack for current */
unsigned long oldrsp; /* 24 user rsp for system call */
-int irqcount; /* 32 Irq nesting counter. Starts with -1 */
+ int irqcount; /* 32 Irq nesting counter. Starts with -1 */
int cpunumber; /* 36 Logical CPU number */
#ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
unsigned long stack_canary; /* 40 stack canary value */
@@ -43,10 +43,10 @@ extern struct x8664_pda boot_cpu_pda[];
#define cpu_pda(i) (_cpu_pda[i])
-/*
+/*
* There is no fast way to get the base address of the PDA, all the accesses
* have to mention %fs/%gs. So it needs to be done this Torvaldian way.
- */
+ */
extern void __bad_pda_field(void) __attribute__((noreturn));
/*
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ extern struct x8664_pda _proxy_pda;
#define pda_offset(field) offsetof(struct x8664_pda, field)
-#define pda_to_op(op,field,val) do { \
+#define pda_to_op(op, field, val) do { \
typedef typeof(_proxy_pda.field) T__; \
if (0) { T__ tmp__; tmp__ = (val); }/* type checking */ \
switch (sizeof(_proxy_pda.field)) { \
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ extern struct x8664_pda _proxy_pda;
"+m" (_proxy_pda.field) : \
"ri" ((T__)val),\
"i"(pda_offset(field)));\
- break; \
+ break; \
case 4: \
asm(op "l %1,%%gs:%c2" :\
"+m" (_proxy_pda.field) : \
@@ -79,15 +79,15 @@ extern struct x8664_pda _proxy_pda;
"ri" ((T__)val),\
"i"(pda_offset(field)));\
break; \
- default:\
+ default:\
__bad_pda_field(); \
- } \
- } while (0)
+ } \
+ } while (0)
#define pda_from_op(op,field) ({ \
typeof(_proxy_pda.field) ret__; \
switch (sizeof(_proxy_pda.field)) { \
- case 2: \
+ case 2: \
asm(op "w %%gs:%c1,%0" :\
"=r" (ret__) : \
"i" (pda_offset(field)),\
@@ -99,25 +99,25 @@ extern struct x8664_pda _proxy_pda;
"i" (pda_offset(field)),\
"m" (_proxy_pda.field));\
break; \
- case 8: \
+ case 8:
Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned
* Jan Beulich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > good catch! Applied your patch to x86.git - queued it up for > > v2.6.25. I bet there are tons of other instances where we use signed > > instead of unsigned and get worse code generation. > > Yes, definitely. This patch was kind of a testing one whether this is > a welcome change. As it appears to be, I'll probably produce more as I > run into respective cases. they are definitely welcome! Especially when fields are also used in integer multiplications or divisions then the cost of signedness can be quite significant. We regularly do such int -> uint sweeps in the scheduler code and it's a great code size reductor. Btw., a sidenote: if you are touching files that you care about, and if you've got a few spare cycles, you might also want to take a look at checkpatch.pl output: $ scripts/checkpatch.pl --file include/asm-x86/pda.h ... total: 23 errors, 1 warnings, 133 lines checked as it might have a few low hanging fruits ripe for cleanup ;-) Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned
>>> Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 17.12.07 14:26 >>> > >* Jan Beulich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> This generally allows better code to be generated, since the zero- >> extension during 32-bit operations comes for free (needed when the >> result is used as array index or similar), whereas sign extension must >> be done explicitly and frequently requires a one byte larger >> instruction due to the necessary rex64 prefix. > >good catch! Applied your patch to x86.git - queued it up for v2.6.25. I >bet there are tons of other instances where we use signed instead of >unsigned and get worse code generation. Yes, definitely. This patch was kind of a testing one whether this is a welcome change. As it appears to be, I'll probably produce more as I run into respective cases. Jan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned
* Jan Beulich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This generally allows better code to be generated, since the zero- > extension during 32-bit operations comes for free (needed when the > result is used as array index or similar), whereas sign extension must > be done explicitly and frequently requires a one byte larger > instruction due to the necessary rex64 prefix. good catch! Applied your patch to x86.git - queued it up for v2.6.25. I bet there are tons of other instances where we use signed instead of unsigned and get worse code generation. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned
* Jan Beulich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This generally allows better code to be generated, since the zero- extension during 32-bit operations comes for free (needed when the result is used as array index or similar), whereas sign extension must be done explicitly and frequently requires a one byte larger instruction due to the necessary rex64 prefix. good catch! Applied your patch to x86.git - queued it up for v2.6.25. I bet there are tons of other instances where we use signed instead of unsigned and get worse code generation. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned
Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] 17.12.07 14:26 * Jan Beulich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This generally allows better code to be generated, since the zero- extension during 32-bit operations comes for free (needed when the result is used as array index or similar), whereas sign extension must be done explicitly and frequently requires a one byte larger instruction due to the necessary rex64 prefix. good catch! Applied your patch to x86.git - queued it up for v2.6.25. I bet there are tons of other instances where we use signed instead of unsigned and get worse code generation. Yes, definitely. This patch was kind of a testing one whether this is a welcome change. As it appears to be, I'll probably produce more as I run into respective cases. Jan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned
* Jan Beulich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: good catch! Applied your patch to x86.git - queued it up for v2.6.25. I bet there are tons of other instances where we use signed instead of unsigned and get worse code generation. Yes, definitely. This patch was kind of a testing one whether this is a welcome change. As it appears to be, I'll probably produce more as I run into respective cases. they are definitely welcome! Especially when fields are also used in integer multiplications or divisions then the cost of signedness can be quite significant. We regularly do such int - uint sweeps in the scheduler code and it's a great code size reductor. Btw., a sidenote: if you are touching files that you care about, and if you've got a few spare cycles, you might also want to take a look at checkpatch.pl output: $ scripts/checkpatch.pl --file include/asm-x86/pda.h ... total: 23 errors, 1 warnings, 133 lines checked as it might have a few low hanging fruits ripe for cleanup ;-) Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned
[Ingo Molnar - Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 03:53:17PM +0100]
|
| * Jan Beulich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| good catch! Applied your patch to x86.git - queued it up for
| v2.6.25. I bet there are tons of other instances where we use signed
| instead of unsigned and get worse code generation.
|
| Yes, definitely. This patch was kind of a testing one whether this is
| a welcome change. As it appears to be, I'll probably produce more as I
| run into respective cases.
|
| they are definitely welcome! Especially when fields are also used in
| integer multiplications or divisions then the cost of signedness can be
| quite significant. We regularly do such int - uint sweeps in the
| scheduler code and it's a great code size reductor.
|
| Btw., a sidenote: if you are touching files that you care about, and if
| you've got a few spare cycles, you might also want to take a look at
| checkpatch.pl output:
|
| $ scripts/checkpatch.pl --file include/asm-x86/pda.h
| ...
| total: 23 errors, 1 warnings, 133 lines checked
|
| as it might have a few low hanging fruits ripe for cleanup ;-)
|
| Ingo
|
Hi, I've tried to make a one ;) It's over last (today synced) linus tree.
Cyrill
---
From: Cyrill Gorcunov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PATCH] x86: cleanup pda.h to fulfil checkpatch
---
Checkpatch still does complain about
if (0) { T__ tmp__; tmp__ = (val)
I'm not sure if we need this line at all.
include/asm-x86/pda.h | 36 ++--
1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/asm-x86/pda.h b/include/asm-x86/pda.h
index 35962bb..00410ec 100644
--- a/include/asm-x86/pda.h
+++ b/include/asm-x86/pda.h
@@ -7,14 +7,14 @@
#include linux/cache.h
#include asm/page.h
-/* Per processor datastructure. %gs points to it while the kernel runs */
+/* Per processor datastructure. %gs points to it while the kernel runs */
struct x8664_pda {
struct task_struct *pcurrent; /* 0 Current process */
unsigned long data_offset; /* 8 Per cpu data offset from linker
address */
unsigned long kernelstack; /* 16 top of kernel stack for current */
unsigned long oldrsp; /* 24 user rsp for system call */
-int irqcount; /* 32 Irq nesting counter. Starts with -1 */
+ int irqcount; /* 32 Irq nesting counter. Starts with -1 */
int cpunumber; /* 36 Logical CPU number */
#ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
unsigned long stack_canary; /* 40 stack canary value */
@@ -43,10 +43,10 @@ extern struct x8664_pda boot_cpu_pda[];
#define cpu_pda(i) (_cpu_pda[i])
-/*
+/*
* There is no fast way to get the base address of the PDA, all the accesses
* have to mention %fs/%gs. So it needs to be done this Torvaldian way.
- */
+ */
extern void __bad_pda_field(void) __attribute__((noreturn));
/*
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ extern struct x8664_pda _proxy_pda;
#define pda_offset(field) offsetof(struct x8664_pda, field)
-#define pda_to_op(op,field,val) do { \
+#define pda_to_op(op, field, val) do { \
typedef typeof(_proxy_pda.field) T__; \
if (0) { T__ tmp__; tmp__ = (val); }/* type checking */ \
switch (sizeof(_proxy_pda.field)) { \
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ extern struct x8664_pda _proxy_pda;
+m (_proxy_pda.field) : \
ri ((T__)val),\
i(pda_offset(field)));\
- break; \
+ break; \
case 4: \
asm(op l %1,%%gs:%c2 :\
+m (_proxy_pda.field) : \
@@ -79,15 +79,15 @@ extern struct x8664_pda _proxy_pda;
ri ((T__)val),\
i(pda_offset(field)));\
break; \
- default:\
+ default:\
__bad_pda_field(); \
- } \
- } while (0)
+ } \
+ } while (0)
#define pda_from_op(op,field) ({ \
typeof(_proxy_pda.field) ret__; \
switch (sizeof(_proxy_pda.field)) { \
- case 2: \
+ case 2: \
asm(op w %%gs:%c1,%0 :\
=r (ret__) : \
i (pda_offset(field)),\
@@ -99,25 +99,25 @@ extern struct x8664_pda _proxy_pda;
i (pda_offset(field)),\
m (_proxy_pda.field));\
break; \
- case 8: \
+ case 8: \
Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned
* Cyrill Gorcunov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, I've tried to make a one ;) It's over last (today synced) linus
tree.
thanks, applied :-)
Some small details: i had to hand-apply your patch to the x86.git#mm
tree (see the instructions below how to fetch that tree). It's best (for
us maintainers) if you send such cleanup patches against that tree, to
reduce patch collision risk. I have attached the final merged patch
further below.
just in case you are on the lookout for other cleanup targets, i've
attached the code-quality script that gives us the mechanic code
quality metric of any file or tree. For example, it nicely shows the
cleanup effects of your patch on the pda.h file:
errors lines of code errors/KLOC
include/asm-x86/pda.h [before] 23 133 172.9
include/asm-x86/pda.h [after] 1 133 7.5
if you want to pick cleanup targets from the x86 tree, do something like
this:
code-quality `find arch/x86 include/asm-x86/ -name '*.c'` | tee quality.txt
sort -n -k 4 quality.txt
Warning: some files are very hard to clean up. Ask on lkml if unsure.
The current code quality of arch/x86/ (as of x86.git#mm) is:
$ code-quality arch/x86/
errors lines of code errors/KLOC
arch/x86/ 4277 117235 36.4
And the long term goal is to achieve the output of:
code-quality kernel/sched*.[ch]
/me runs and hides ;-)
Ingo
-
git-clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git
linux-2.6.git
cd linux-2.6.git
git-branch x86
git-checkout x86
git-pull git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/x86/linux-2.6-x86.git mm
(do subsequent pulls via git-pull --force, as we frequently rebase the
git tree. NOTE: this might override your own local changes, so do this
only if you dont mind about losing thse changes in that tree.)
---
Subject: x86: clean up include/asm-x86/pda.h
From: Cyrill Gorcunov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
clean up include/asm-x86/pda.h, as suggested by checkpatch.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
include/asm-x86/pda.h | 70 +-
1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
Index: linux-x86.q/include/asm-x86/pda.h
===
--- linux-x86.q.orig/include/asm-x86/pda.h
+++ linux-x86.q/include/asm-x86/pda.h
@@ -7,15 +7,15 @@
#include linux/cache.h
#include asm/page.h
-/* Per processor datastructure. %gs points to it while the kernel runs */
+/* Per processor datastructure. %gs points to it while the kernel runs */
struct x8664_pda {
struct task_struct *pcurrent; /* 0 Current process */
unsigned long data_offset; /* 8 Per cpu data offset from linker
address */
- unsigned long kernelstack; /* 16 top of kernel stack for current */
- unsigned long oldrsp; /* 24 user rsp for system call */
-int irqcount; /* 32 Irq nesting counter. Starts with -1 */
- unsigned int cpunumber; /* 36 Logical CPU number */
+ unsigned long kernelstack; /* 16 top of kernel stack for current */
+ unsigned long oldrsp; /* 24 user rsp for system call */
+ int irqcount; /* 32 Irq nesting counter. Starts -1 */
+ unsigned int cpunumber; /* 36 Logical CPU number */
#ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
unsigned long stack_canary; /* 40 stack canary value */
/* gcc-ABI: this canary MUST be at
@@ -44,10 +44,10 @@ extern void pda_init(int);
#define cpu_pda(i) (_cpu_pda[i])
-/*
+/*
* There is no fast way to get the base address of the PDA, all the accesses
* have to mention %fs/%gs. So it needs to be done this Torvaldian way.
- */
+ */
extern void __bad_pda_field(void) __attribute__((noreturn));
/*
@@ -58,70 +58,70 @@ extern struct x8664_pda _proxy_pda;
#define pda_offset(field) offsetof(struct x8664_pda, field)
-#define pda_to_op(op,field,val) do { \
+#define pda_to_op(op, field, val) do { \
typedef typeof(_proxy_pda.field) T__; \
if (0) { T__ tmp__; tmp__ = (val); }/* type checking */ \
switch (sizeof(_proxy_pda.field)) { \
case 2: \
- asm(op w %1,%%gs:%c2 :\
+ asm(op w %1,%%gs:%c2 :\
+m (_proxy_pda.field) : \
ri ((T__)val),\
- i(pda_offset(field)));\
- break; \
+ i(pda_offset(field)));\
+ break; \
case 4: \
-
Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned
* Cyrill Gorcunov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Checkpatch still does complain about
if (0) { T__ tmp__; tmp__ = (val)
I'm not sure if we need this line at all.
that's a type-checking trick. It does not result in any generated code
but gcc flags it with a build time warning if there's a type mismatch.
So it's a checkpatch.pl false positive.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned
[Ingo Molnar - Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 05:01:27PM +0100]
|
| * Cyrill Gorcunov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| Checkpatch still does complain about
| if (0) { T__ tmp__; tmp__ = (val)
| I'm not sure if we need this line at all.
|
| that's a type-checking trick. It does not result in any generated code
| but gcc flags it with a build time warning if there's a type mismatch.
| So it's a checkpatch.pl false positive.
|
| Ingo
|
Thanks Ingo!
I'll fetch up the tree you mentoined in prev letter and next time
try to be more carefull with patches I'm sending (i'm a bit busy
with my second machine on which i'm trying to install fc8 but
anaconda hangs again and again so that is the reason I'm not sync'ed
with x86 and mm trees yet, sorry)
Cyrill
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned
This generally allows better code to be generated, since the zero-
extension during 32-bit operations comes for free (needed when the
result is used as array index or similar), whereas sign extension must
be done explicitly and frequently requires a one byte larger
instruction due to the necessary rex64 prefix.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
include/asm-x86/pda.h |4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- linux-2.6.24-rc5/include/asm-x86/pda.h 2007-12-12 16:48:43.0
+0100
+++ 2.6.24-rc5-x86_64-unsigned-cpu/include/asm-x86/pda.h2007-12-07
15:32:15.0 +0100
@@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ struct x8664_pda {
unsigned long kernelstack; /* 16 top of kernel stack for current */
unsigned long oldrsp; /* 24 user rsp for system call */
int irqcount; /* 32 Irq nesting counter. Starts with -1 */
- int cpunumber; /* 36 Logical CPU number */
+ unsigned int cpunumber; /* 36 Logical CPU number */
#ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
unsigned long stack_canary; /* 40 stack canary value */
/* gcc-ABI: this canary MUST be at
offset 40!!! */
#endif
char *irqstackptr;
- int nodenumber; /* number of current node */
+ unsigned int nodenumber;/* number of current node */
unsigned int __softirq_pending;
unsigned int __nmi_count; /* number of NMI on this CPUs */
short mmu_state;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH] x86-64: make pda's cpunumber and nodenumber unsigned
This generally allows better code to be generated, since the zero-
extension during 32-bit operations comes for free (needed when the
result is used as array index or similar), whereas sign extension must
be done explicitly and frequently requires a one byte larger
instruction due to the necessary rex64 prefix.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
include/asm-x86/pda.h |4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- linux-2.6.24-rc5/include/asm-x86/pda.h 2007-12-12 16:48:43.0
+0100
+++ 2.6.24-rc5-x86_64-unsigned-cpu/include/asm-x86/pda.h2007-12-07
15:32:15.0 +0100
@@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ struct x8664_pda {
unsigned long kernelstack; /* 16 top of kernel stack for current */
unsigned long oldrsp; /* 24 user rsp for system call */
int irqcount; /* 32 Irq nesting counter. Starts with -1 */
- int cpunumber; /* 36 Logical CPU number */
+ unsigned int cpunumber; /* 36 Logical CPU number */
#ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
unsigned long stack_canary; /* 40 stack canary value */
/* gcc-ABI: this canary MUST be at
offset 40!!! */
#endif
char *irqstackptr;
- int nodenumber; /* number of current node */
+ unsigned int nodenumber;/* number of current node */
unsigned int __softirq_pending;
unsigned int __nmi_count; /* number of NMI on this CPUs */
short mmu_state;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
