On 02/11/2019 06:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Which is clearly worse. Now we can write that as:
>
> int __down_read_trylock2(unsigned long *l)
> {
> long tmp = READ_ONCE(*l);
>
> while (tmp >= 0) {
> if (try_cmpxchg(l, &tmp, tmp + 1))
> return 1;
> }
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> which generates:
>
> 0000000000000030 <__down_read_trylock2>:
> 30: 48 8b 07 mov (%rdi),%rax
> 33: 48 85 c0 test %rax,%rax
> 36: 78 18 js 50 <__down_read_trylock2+0x20>
> 38: 48 8d 50 01 lea 0x1(%rax),%rdx
> 3c: f0 48 0f b1 17 lock cmpxchg %rdx,(%rdi)
> 41: 75 f0 jne 33 <__down_read_trylock2+0x3>
> 43: b8 01 00 00 00 mov $0x1,%eax
> 48: c3 retq
> 49: 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 nopl 0x0(%rax)
> 50: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
> 52: c3 retq
>
> Which is a lot better; but not quite there yet.
>
>
> I've tried quite a bit, but I can't seem to get GCC to generate the:
>
> add $1,%rdx
> jle
>
> required; stuff like:
>
> new = old + 1;
> if (new <= 0)
>
> generates:
>
> lea 0x1(%rax),%rdx
> test %rdx, %rdx
> jle
Thanks for the suggested code snippet. So you want to replace "lea
0x1(%rax), %rdx" by "add $1,%rdx"?
I think the compiler is doing that so as to use the address generation
unit for addition instead of using the ALU. That will leave the ALU
available for doing other arithmetic operation in parallel. I don't
think it is a good idea to override the compiler and force it to use
ALU. So I am not going to try doing that. It is only 1 or 2 more of
codes anyway.
Cheers,
Longman
