search for: addled

since august 8th, 2003 the kernel on my i386 pentiumIII won't compile. the problem arises in locore.s with the definition of the constants $PAGE_SHIFT and $PTESHIFT used in `shr' and `shl' instructions within the macros `fillkpt' and `fillkptphys'. i've tried to cvsup(1) RELENG_4 and RELENG_4_8 every day for over a week now, but kernel builds (as part of a buildworld)

mfence appears to be way slower than a locked instruction - let's use lock+add unconditionally, as we always did on old 32-bit. Results: perf stat -r 10 -- ./virtio_ring_0_9 --sleep --host-affinity 0 --guest-affinity 0 Before: 0.922565990 seconds time elapsed ( +- 1.15% ) After: 0.578667024 seconds time elapsed

mfence appears to be way slower than a locked instruction - let's use lock+add unconditionally, as we always did on old 32-bit. Results: perf stat -r 10 -- ./virtio_ring_0_9 --sleep --host-affinity 0 --guest-affinity 0 Before: 0.922565990 seconds time elapsed ( +- 1.15% ) After: 0.578667024 seconds time elapsed

mb() typically uses mfence on modern x86, but a micro-benchmark shows that it's 2 to 3 times slower than lock; addl that we use on older CPUs. So let's use the locked variant everywhere. While I was at it, I found some inconsistencies in comments in arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h The documentation fixes are included first - I verified that they do not change the generated code at all.

mb() typically uses mfence on modern x86, but a micro-benchmark shows that it's 2 to 3 times slower than lock; addl that we use on older CPUs. So let's use the locked variant everywhere. While I was at it, I found some inconsistencies in comments in arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h The documentation fixes are included first - I verified that they do not change the generated code at all.

mb() typically uses mfence on modern x86, but a micro-benchmark shows that it's 2 to 3 times slower than lock; addl that we use on older CPUs. So we really should use the locked variant everywhere, except that intel manual says that clflush is only ordered by mfence, so we can't. Note: some callers of clflush seems to assume sfence will order it, so there could be existing bugs around

mb() typically uses mfence on modern x86, but a micro-benchmark shows that it's 2 to 3 times slower than lock; addl that we use on older CPUs. So we really should use the locked variant everywhere, except that intel manual says that clflush is only ordered by mfence, so we can't. Note: some callers of clflush seems to assume sfence will order it, so there could be existing bugs around

Hello, While investigating one of the existing tests (test/CodeGen/X86/tailcallpic2.ll), I ran into IR that produces some interesting code. The IR is very straightforward: define protected fastcc i32 @tailcallee(i32 %a1, i32 %a2, i32 %a3, i32 %a4) { entry: ret i32 %a3 } define fastcc i32 @tailcaller(i32 %in1, i32 %in2) { entry: %tmp11 = tail call fastcc i32 @tailcallee( i32 %in1, i32 %in2, i32

mfence appears to be way slower than a locked instruction - let's use lock+add unconditionally, as we always did on old 32-bit. Just poking at SP would be the most natural, but if we then read the value from SP, we get a false dependency which will slow us down. This was noted in this article: http://shipilev.net/blog/2014/on-the-fence-with-dependencies/ And is easy to reproduce by sticking

addl clobbers flags (such as CF) but barrier.h didn't tell this to gcc. Historically, gcc doesn't need one on x86, and always considers flags clobbered. We are probably missing the cc clobber in a *lot* of places for this reason. But even if not necessary, it's probably a good thing to add for documentation, and in case gcc semantcs ever change. Reported-by: Borislav Petkov <bp at

mb() typically uses mfence on modern x86, but a micro-benchmark shows that it's 2 to 3 times slower than lock; addl that we use on older CPUs. So we really should use the locked variant everywhere, except that intel manual says that clflush is only ordered by mfence, so we can't. Note: some callers of clflush seems to assume sfence will order it, so there could be existing bugs around

mb() typically uses mfence on modern x86, but a micro-benchmark shows that it's 2 to 3 times slower than lock; addl that we use on older CPUs. So we really should use the locked variant everywhere, except that intel manual says that clflush is only ordered by mfence, so we can't. Note: some callers of clflush seems to assume sfence will order it, so there could be existing bugs around

Hey Eli, On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote: > Hello, > > While investigating one of the existing tests > (test/CodeGen/X86/tailcallpic2.ll), I ran into IR that produces some > interesting code. The IR is very straightforward: > > define protected fastcc i32 @tailcallee(i32 %a1, i32 %a2, i32 %a3, i32 > %a4) { > entry: >

mb() typically uses mfence on modern x86, but a micro-benchmark shows that it's 2 to 3 times slower than lock; addl $0,(%%e/rsp) that we use on older CPUs. So let's use the locked variant everywhere - helps keep the code simple as well. While I was at it, I found some inconsistencies in comments in arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h I hope I'm not splitting this up too much - the reason

mb() typically uses mfence on modern x86, but a micro-benchmark shows that it's 2 to 3 times slower than lock; addl $0,(%%e/rsp) that we use on older CPUs. So let's use the locked variant everywhere - helps keep the code simple as well. While I was at it, I found some inconsistencies in comments in arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h I hope I'm not splitting this up too much - the reason

I've modified llvm to emit vc++ compatible SEH structures for my personality on x86/Windows and my handler works fine, but the only thing I can't figure out is how to call these funclets, they look like: Catch: "?catch$3@?0?m3 at 4HA": LBB4_3: # %BasicBlock26 pushl %ebp pushl %eax addl $12, %ebp movl %esp, -28(%ebp) movl $LBB4_5, %eax

>> While investigating one of the existing tests >> (test/CodeGen/X86/tailcallpic2.ll), I ran into IR that produces some >> interesting code. The IR is very straightforward: >> >> define protected fastcc i32 @tailcallee(i32 %a1, i32 %a2, i32 %a3, i32 >> %a4) { >> entry: >> ret i32 %a3 >> } >> >> define fastcc i32 @tailcaller(i32

When I increased COLS to the point where the loop could no longer be unrolled, the selection dag code generator generated effectively the same code as the default X86 code generator. Lots of redundant imul/movl/addl sequences. It can't clean it up either. Only unrolling all nested loops permits it to be optimized away, regardless of code generator. Jeff Cohen wrote: > I noticed

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > -#define __smp_mb() mb() > +#define __smp_mb() asm volatile("lock; addl $0,-4(%%esp)" ::: "memory", "cc") So this doesn't look right for x86-64. Using %esp rather than %rsp. How did that even work for you? Linus

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > -#define __smp_mb() mb() > +#define __smp_mb() asm volatile("lock; addl $0,-4(%%esp)" ::: "memory", "cc") So this doesn't look right for x86-64. Using %esp rather than %rsp. How did that even work for you? Linus