This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
RE: [PATCH RFC v2 24/70] MIPS: asm: spinlock: Replace sub instruction with addiu
- From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at linux-mips dot org>
- To: Matthew Fortune <Matthew dot Fortune at imgtec dot com>
- Cc: Markos Chandras <Markos dot Chandras at imgtec dot com>, binutils at sourceware dot org, "linux-mips at linux-mips dot org" <linux-mips at linux-mips dot org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:17:02 +0000 (GMT)
- Subject: RE: [PATCH RFC v2 24/70] MIPS: asm: spinlock: Replace sub instruction with addiu
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1421405389-15512-1-git-send-email-markos dot chandras at imgtec dot com> <1421405389-15512-25-git-send-email-markos dot chandras at imgtec dot com> <alpine dot LFD dot 2 dot 11 dot 1501200028390 dot 28301 at eddie dot linux-mips dot org> <54BE3BFD dot 5070108 at imgtec dot com> <6D39441BF12EF246A7ABCE6654B0235320FAC458 at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org>
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Matthew Fortune wrote:
> > > What this shows really is a GAS bug fix for the SUB macro is needed
> > > similar to what I suggested in 12/70 for ADDI (from the situation I
> > infer
> > > there is some real work to do in GAS in this area; adding Matthew as a
> > > recipient to raise his awareness) so that it does not expand to ADDI
> > where
> > > the architecture or processor selected do not support it. Instead a
> > > longer sequence involving SUB has to be produced.
> The assembler is at least consistent at the moment as the 'sub' macro is
> disabled for R6. I am very keen to stop carrying around historic baggage
> where it is not necessary. R6 is one place we can do that and deal with
> any code changes that are required.
I have yet to be convinced it is merely historic baggage. Maybe it's a
matter of habits I got into, but I find the presence of these macros a way
to make the MIPS assembly language actually usable for handcoding. There
are several reasons for this.
One is the limited range of immediates in machine makes it necessary to
use different instruction sequences for different immediate input
arguments. Given this source code instruction:
li $2, foo
for different values of `foo' you'll get different machine code:
0x1234 addiu $2, $0, 0x1234
0x89ab ori $2, $0, 0x89ab
0x89ab0000 lui $2, 0x89ab
0x89ab1234 lui $2, 0x89ab; addiu $2, $2, 0x1234
now if `foo' is some sort of an externally supplied constant (e.g. set
with a `configure' script or whatever), then without the macros you'd have
to pessimise code, or clutter it with #ifdef's.
Another is to abstract ABI dependencies. Again, given this source code
lw $2, foo
for different ABIs you'll get different code:
o32/non-PIC lui $2, %hi(foo); lw $2, %lo(foo)($2)
o32/PIC/extern lw $2, %got(foo)($28); lw $2, 0($2)
o32/PIC/local lw $2, %got(foo)($28); addiu $2, %lo(foo); lw $2, 0($2)
n64/non-PIC lui $1, %highest(foo); lui $2, %hi(foo);
addiu $1, $1, %higher(foo); dsll32 $1, $1, 0;
daddu $1, $1, $2; lw $2, %lo(foo)($1)
n64/PIC/extern ld $2, %got_disp(foo)($28); lw $2, 0($2)
You'd have to conditionalise it all too.
And there are more cases macros address, e.g. to make the complete set of
arithmetic conditions available for branches (with the use of SLT and SLTU
instructions), extra operations (e.g. NOT as a shorthand for NOR),
three-argument trapping MULOU, DIVU, REMU operations (especially
interesting to note in the context of r6; why MODU wasn't consequently
called REMU for portability escapes me), etc.
All this makes assembly language programming easier and more like with
CISC assembly languages, e.g. this x86 assembly-language instruction:
addl $foo, %eax
will do the right thing for any value of `foo' and the assembler will also
pick the shortest instruction encoding available. As a result when
writing code you can focus on the problem you're trying to solve rather
than getting distracted by ABI peculiarites or the assymetry of the
machine instruction set. It is also easier to follow when studying code
written by someone else.
Of course all this does not matter for compiler-generated code. Which is
also the reason why the MIPS16 assembly language has never included a
complementing set of these macros -- it was only meant to be used in
compiler-generated code and never for handcoding. And for handcoded
assembly if you are concerned about source code instructions expanding
into multiple machine instructions, then you can always stick `.set
nomacro' at the top of your source code.
> > > __asm__ __volatile__(
> > > "1: ll %1, %2 # arch_read_unlock \n"
> > > " sub %1, %3 \n"
> > > " sc %1, %0 \n"
> > > : "=" GCC_OFF12_ASM() (rw->lock), "=&r" (tmp)
> > > : GCC_OFF12_ASM() (rw->lock), GCC_ADDI_ASM() (1)
> > > : "memory");
> > >
> > > (untested, but should work) so that there's still a single instruction
> > > only in the LL/SC loop and consequently no increased lock contention
> > risk.
> (Note this asm block does not appear to need to clobber memory either as
> the effects on memory are correctly stated in the constraints).
The `memory' clobber serves the purpose of an optimisation barrier here,
it's not about the memory accesses happening within the asm itself.
> > > As a side note, this could be cleaned up to use a "+" input/output
> > > constraint; such a clean-up will be welcome -- although to be complete,
> > a
> > > review of all the asms will be required (this may bump up the GCC
> > version
> > > requirement though, ISTR bugs in this area).
> I believe some of these asm blocks using ll/sc already have '+' in the
> constraints for the memory location so perhaps that is either already
> a problem or not an issue.
I just don't remember offhand if the use of `+' was in platform or in
shared code. If the latter, then let's just switch, if the former, we
need to be careful.
IIRC some versions of GCC complained and failed compilation if the list
of constraints associated with `+' did not allow a register alternative,
such by including the `r' constraint. Which of course would be completely
pointless here, and actually harmful. Furthermore IIRC it had been a
deliberate decision made by GCC maintainers who were unaware of some use
cases for inline asms. The decision was then discussed and GCC
maintainers persuaded to change it; it can likely be tracked down in a
mailing list archive somewhere.