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

[David Laight]

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.

	David

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