[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] x86/paravirt: Don't make vcpu_is_preempted() a callee-save function

On 02/13/2017 04:52 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 03:12:45PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 02/13/2017 02:42 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> On 02/13/2017 05:53 AM, Peter Zijlstra 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;
>>>> ?
>>> Yes, that looks good to me.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Longman
>> Sorry, I am going to take it back. The displacement or offset can only
>> be up to 32-bit. So we will still need to use at least one more
>> register, I think.
> I don't think that would be a problem, I very much doubt we declare more
> than 4G worth of per-cpu variables in the kernel.
> In any case, use "e" or "Z" as constraint (I never quite know when to
> use which). That are s32 and u32 displacement immediates resp. and
> should fail compile with a semi-sensible failure if the displacement is
> too big.
It is the address of &steal_time that will exceed the 32-bit limit.


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.