Le 13/04/2021 à 00:08, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
Hi!

On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 03:33:45PM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
+#define ATOMIC_OP(op, asm_op, dot, sign)                               \
  static __inline__ void atomic_##op(int a, atomic_t *v)                        
\
  {                                                                     \
        int t;                                                          \
                                                                        \
        __asm__ __volatile__(                                           \
  "1:      lwarx   %0,0,%3         # atomic_" #op "\n"                      \
-       #asm_op " %0,%2,%0\n"                                         \
+       #asm_op "%I2" dot " %0,%0,%2\n"                                     \
  "        stwcx.  %0,0,%3 \n"                                                \
  "        bne-    1b\n"                                                      \
-       : "=&r" (t), "+m" (v->counter)                                       \
-       : "r" (a), "r" (&v->counter)                                 \
+       : "=&b" (t), "+m" (v->counter)                                       \
+       : "r"#sign (a), "r" (&v->counter)                            \
        : "cc");                                                      \
  }                                                                     \

You need "b" (instead of "r") only for "addi".  You can use "addic"
instead, which clobbers XER[CA], but *all* inline asm does, so that is
not a downside here (it is also not slower on any CPU that matters).

@@ -238,14 +238,14 @@ static __inline__ int atomic_fetch_add_unless(atomic_t 
*v, int a, int u)
  "1:      lwarx   %0,0,%1         # atomic_fetch_add_unless\n\
        cmpw    0,%0,%3 \n\
        beq     2f \n\
-       add     %0,%2,%0 \n"
+       add%I2  %0,%0,%2 \n"
  "        stwcx.  %0,0,%1 \n\
        bne-    1b \n"
        PPC_ATOMIC_EXIT_BARRIER
-" subf    %0,%2,%0 \n\
+" sub%I2  %0,%0,%2 \n\
  2:"
-       : "=&r" (t)
-       : "r" (&v->counter), "r" (a), "r" (u)
+       : "=&b" (t)
+       : "r" (&v->counter), "rI" (a), "r" (u)
        : "cc", "memory");

Same here.

Yes, I thought about addic, I didn't find an early solution because I forgot 
the matching 'addc'.

Now with the couple addc/addic it works well.

Thanks


Nice patches!

Acked-by: Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org>


Christophe

Reply via email to