Hi Jan,
On 28/02/2020 09:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 28.02.2020 10:09, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Jan,
On 28/02/2020 08:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 27.02.2020 19:46, Andrew Cooper wrote:
Each function takes an unsigned count, and loops based on a signed i. This
causes problems when between 2 and 4 billion operations are requested.
I can see problems, but not (as the title says) with comparison issues
(the signed i gets converted to unsigned for the purpose of the
comparison).
In practice, signed-ness issues aren't possible because count exceeding
INT_MAX is excluded earlier in do_grant_op(), but the code reads as if it is
buggy, and GCC obviously can't spot this either.
Bloat-o-meter reports:
add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 0/4 up/down: 0/-95 (-95)
Function old new delta
do_grant_table_op 7155 7140 -15
gnttab_transfer 2732 2716 -16
gnttab_unmap_grant_ref 771 739 -32
gnttab_unmap_and_replace 771 739 -32
Total: Before=2996364, After=2996269, chg -0.00%
and inspection of gnttab_unmap_grant_ref() at least reveals one fewer local
variables on the stack.
This is a good thing for x86. However, having started to familiarize
myself a tiny bit with RISC-V, I'm no longer certain our present way
of preferring unsigned int for array indexing variable and alike is
actually a good thing without further abstraction. Nevertheless, this
isn't an immediate issue, so ...
Would you mind expanding a bit more about this comment here? How
unsigned int is going to make things worse on RISC-V?
Other than x86-64 and Arm64, 64-bit (and wider) RISC-V sign-extend
the result of 32-bit operations by default. Hence for an unsigned
32-bit type to be used as array index, an additional zero-extending
insn is going to be needed (just like for our existing ports a
sign-extending insn is needed when array indexing variables are
calculated as 32-bit signed quantities, which is one of the reasons
why right now we prefer unsigned int in such cases).
Meh, I am not convinced this is a good enough reason to switch array
indexes to signed int for RISC-V. There are probably better place to
look at optimization in common code and would benefits all arch.
Regarding the reason for "unsigned int", I don't request it because it
produce "shorter' code but because there is no reason to have a signed
index for array.
Anyway, let's cross that bridge when we have an actual RISC-V port for
Xen merged.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
