Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/bitops: implement __test_bit

[H. Peter Anvin]

Presumably because gcc can't generate bt... whether or not it is worth it is another matter.

On August 30, 2015 11:05:49 PM PDT, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>* Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> +static __always_inline int __constant_test_bit(long nr, const
>unsigned long *addr)
>> +{
>> +	return ((1UL << (nr & (BITS_PER_LONG-1))) &
>> +		(addr[nr >> _BITOPS_LONG_SHIFT])) != 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline int __variable_test_bit(long nr, const unsigned long
>*addr)
>> +{
>> +	int oldbit;
>> +
>> +	asm volatile("bt %2,%1\n\t"
>> +		     "sbb %0,%0"
>> +		     : "=r" (oldbit)
>> +		     : "m" (*addr), "Ir" (nr));
>> +
>> +	return oldbit;
>> +}
>
>Color me confused, why use assembly for this at all?
>
>Why not just use C for testing the bit (i.e. turn __constant_test_bit()
>into 
>__test_bit()) - that would also allow the compiler to propagate the
>result, 
>potentially more optimally than we can do it via SBB...
>
>Thanks,
>
>	Ingo

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
--
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/