On February 13, 2017 2:53:43 AM PST, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:47:16AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> That way we'd end up with something like:
>>
>> asm("
>> push %rdi;
>> movslq %edi, %rdi;
>> movq __per_cpu_offset(,%rdi,8), %rax;
>> cmpb $0, %[offset](%rax);
>> setne %al;
>> pop %rdi;
>> " : : [offset] "i" (((unsigned long)&steal_time) + offsetof(struct
>steal_time, preempted)));
>>
>> And if we could get rid of the sign extend on edi we could avoid all
>the
>> push-pop nonsense, but I'm not sure I see how to do that (then again,
>> this asm foo isn't my strongest point).
>
>Maybe:
>
>movsql %edi, %rax;
>movq __per_cpu_offset(,%rax,8), %rax;
>cmpb $0, %[offset](%rax);
>setne %al;
>
>?
We could kill the zero or sign extend by changing the calling interface to pass
an unsigned long instead of an int. It is much more likely that a zero extend
is free for the caller than a sign extend.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
