search for: movsql

...setof(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...

...setof(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...

...;> > >>> 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 di...

...;> > >>> 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 di...

..._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

..._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

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 12:00:43PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > >> +asm( > >> +".pushsection .text;" > >> +".global __raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempted;" > >> +".type __raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempted, @function;" > >> +"__raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempted:" > >> +FRAME_BEGIN >

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 12:00:43PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > >> +asm( > >> +".pushsection .text;" > >> +".global __raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempted;" > >> +".type __raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempted, @function;" > >> +"__raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempted:" > >> +FRAME_BEGIN >

...(((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; ?

...al_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 wi...

...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 i...

...>> 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,...