Then I look for all the call to function (ccio_io_pdir_entry) even thought
it's inligned with those mtsp and lci it would be easy to find it.
The C code learn me that it would call in ccio_map_single() and thanks with
iommu_helper.h in ccio_map_sg(). But objdump -D ccio-dma.o shows me only one
place where this code is used
00000000 <ccio_map_single>:
[snip]
84: 34 14 00 00 ldi 0,r20
88: 00 14 58 20 mtsp r20,sr1
8c: 0a a3 0a 13 add,l r3,r21,r19
90: d6 65 0c 14 depw r5,31,12,r19
94: 0f 53 12 88 stw r19,4(r26)
98: 04 60 53 1c lci r0(sr1,r3),ret0
9c: d3 9c 1a 74 extrw,u ret0,19,12,ret0
a0: d6 9c 0e 14 depw ret0,15,12,r20
a4: 0f 54 12 80 stw r20,0(r26)
a8: 07 40 12 80 fdc r0(r26)
ac: 00 00 04 00 sync
[snip]
and not in ccio_map_sg() (even not a call to ccio_io_pdir_entry() in case he
didn't reach to inline it).
And the wonder is that my system d380 is even booting and running despite this
lake???
That said with gcc-4.3, I find well this code iin the 2 functions.
And here commes my worry about mtsp() macro: here is the resulting code with
gcc-4.3:
00000000 <ccio_map_sg>:
[snip]
__ 1a0: 34 1a 00 00 ldi 0,r26__
1a4: 20 a0 02 00 ldil L%10000000,r5
1a8: 8e 80 61 28 cmpib,> 0,r20,244 <ccio_map_sg+0x244>
1ac: 20 40 0e 01 ldil L%-10000000,rp
1b0: 86 c0 21 88 cmpib,= 0,r22,27c <ccio_map_sg+0x27c>
1b4: 34 19 00 00 ldi 0,r25
1b8: 0f e0 10 9c ldw 0(r31),ret0
1bc: 0d 80 10 94 ldw 0(r12),r20
1c0: d7 80 1c 1e depwi 0,31,2,ret0
1c4: 4b b3 00 20 ldw 10(ret1),r19
1c8: 0a 9c 04 1c sub ret0,r20,ret0
1cc: 0f f0 10 95 ldw 8(r31),r21
1d0: d3 9c 1f 45 extrw,s ret0,26,27,ret0
1d4: 0a b3 0a 13 add,l r19,r21,r19
1d8: d7 9c 09 8c depw,z ret0,19,20,ret0
1dc: 0f e8 10 94 ldw 4(r31),r20
1e0: 08 bc 0a 1c add,l ret0,r5,ret0
1e4: 6b b3 00 20 stw r19,10(ret1)
1e8: 0a b9 0a 15 add,l r25,r21,r21
1ec: 0a 9c 0a 14 add,l ret0,r20,r20
__ 1f0: 00 1a 58 20 mtsp r26,sr1 __
1f4: 08 54 0a 1c add,l r20,rp,ret0
1f8: d7 8e 0c 14 depw r14,31,12,ret0
1fc: 0e dc 12 88 stw ret0,4(r22)
200: 06 80 53 13 lci r0(sr1,r20),r19
204: d2 73 1a 74 extrw,u r19,19,12,r19
208: 08 1a 02 5c copy r26,ret0
20c: d7 93 0e 14 depw r19,15,12,ret0
210: 0e dc 12 80 stw ret0,0(r22)
214: 06 c0 12 80 fdc r0(r22)
218: 00 00 04 00 sync
[snip]
My worry is the number of insn between the ldi 0,r26 and the mtsp r26,sr1.
Here, I supposed it's harmless but may be different in other critical path?
Wouldn't it be interesting (if possible) to insure that the load of the reg
and mtsp stay close together? (or may be simply detect the case of a const == 0?)
What your opinion?
Tx again,
J.
PS: I didn't find back gcc-4.0 to check if my previous perf test could failed
for this reason?
