Re: [PATCH 09/17] m68k: Implement xor_unlock_is_negative_byte

[Greg Ungerer]

On 20/9/23 01:57, David Laight wrote:
> From: Matthew Wilcox
> > Sent: 19 September 2023 16:47
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 03:22:25PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > > Anyway, that's not the brief.  We're looking to (eg) clear bit 0
> > > > and test whether bit 7 was set.  So it's the sign bit of the byte,
> > > > not the sign bit of the int.
> > >
> > > Use the address of the byte as an int and xor with 1u<<24.
> > > The xor will do a rmw on the three bytes following, but I
> > > doubt that matters.
> >
> > Bet you a shiny penny that Coldfire takes an unaligned access trap ...
>
> and then the 'firmware' silently fixed it up for you a few 1000
> clocks later...
>
> > and besides, this is done on _every_ call to unlock_page().  That might
> > cross not only a cacheline boundary but also a page boundary.  I cannot
> > believe that would be a high-performing solution.  It might be just fine
> > on m68000 but I bet even by the 030 it's lower performing.
>
> I do remember managing to use 'cas2' to add an item to a linked list.
> But it is so painful so setup it was better just to disable interrupts.
> For non-smp that is almost certainly ok.
> (Unless the instructions are slow because of synchronisation.)
> Otherwise you need to use 'cas' on the aligned word.
> Assuming coldfire even has cas.

It doesn't. See CONFIG_CPU_HAS_NO_CAS in arch/m68k/Kconfig.cpu for how
m68k deals with ColdFire and early 68000 parts not having it.

Regards
Greg


> 	David
>
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)