Re: [GIT PULL] core/hweight changes for v2.6.35

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 05/17/2010 02:46 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 17 May 2010, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
>> +/* popcnt %rdi, %rax */
>> +#define POPCNT ".byte 0xf3,0x48,0x0f,0xb8,0xc7"
>> +#define REG_IN "D"
>> +#define REG_OUT "a"
> ...
>> +/*
>> + * __sw_hweightXX are called from within the alternatives below
>> + * and callee-clobbered registers need to be taken care of. See
>> + * ARCH_HWEIGHT_CFLAGS in <arch/x86/Kconfig> for the respective
>> + * compiler switches.
>> + */
>> +static inline unsigned int __arch_hweight32(unsigned int w)
>> +{
>> +	unsigned int res = 0;
>> +
>> +	asm (ALTERNATIVE("call __sw_hweight32", POPCNT, X86_FEATURE_POPCNT)
>> +		     : "="REG_OUT (res)
>> +		     : REG_IN (w));
>> +
>> +	return res;
>> +}
> 
> I do not believe this is correct.
> 
> On x86-64, you are using a 64-bit instruction, but
> 
> 	REG_IN (w)
> 
> does _not_ guarantee that the register is zero in the high bits.
> 
> Yes, yes, in practice it _probably_ is, because the register almost 
> certainly got loaded with some kind of zero-extending mov instruction. But 
> as far as I can tell, the code is buggy. You're telling gcc that you are 
> using a 32-bit register, but you're actually counting bits in the full 64 
> bits.
> 
> Am I missing something?
> 

No, you're absolutely right; the input can be any value including
sign-extended.  The best fix for this is probably to use a 32-bit
instruction in this case -- I will check in such a patch and update the
pull branch.  If that's okay with you we'll send you a new pull request
in a bit.

The embarrassing part is I think I spotted this problem at one point,
but forgot about it in dealing with a conflict between this and another
patchset.

	-hpa

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/