On 13/08/2021 13.31, Janosch Frank wrote:
On 8/13/21 10:32 AM, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 07:36:08 +0000
Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bit setting and clearing is never bad to have.
Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
lib/s390x/asm/bitops.h | 102
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 102
insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm/bitops.h b/lib/s390x/asm/bitops.h
index 792881ec..f5612855 100644
--- a/lib/s390x/asm/bitops.h
+++ b/lib/s390x/asm/bitops.h
@@ -17,6 +17,78 @@
#define BITS_PER_LONG 64
+static inline unsigned long *bitops_word(unsigned long nr,
+ const volatile unsigned
long *ptr) +{
+ unsigned long addr;
+
+ addr = (unsigned long)ptr + ((nr ^ (nr & (BITS_PER_LONG -
1))) >> 3);
+ return (unsigned long *)addr;
why not just
return ptr + (nr / BITS_PER_LONG);
+}
+
+static inline unsigned long bitops_mask(unsigned long nr)
+{
+ return 1UL << (nr & (BITS_PER_LONG - 1));
+}
+
+static inline uint64_t laog(volatile unsigned long *ptr, uint64_t
mask) +{
+ uint64_t old;
+
+ /* load and or 64bit concurrent and interlocked */
+ asm volatile(
+ " laog %[old],%[mask],%[ptr]\n"
+ : [old] "=d" (old), [ptr] "+Q" (*ptr)
+ : [mask] "d" (mask)
+ : "memory", "cc" );
+ return old;
+}
do we really need the artillery (asm) here?
is there a reason why we can't do this in C?
Those are the interlocked/atomic instructions and even though we don't
exactly need them right now I wanted to add them for completeness.
I think I agree with Claudio - unless we really need them, we should not
clog the sources with arbitrary inline assembly functions.
We might be able to achieve the same via compiler functionality but this
is not my expertise. Maybe Thomas or David have a few pointers for me?
I'm not an expert with atomic builtins either, but what's the point of this
at all? Loading a value and OR-ing something into the value in one go?
What's that good for?
Thomas
