Re: [PATCH] take 2 of the tr-based current

[Anton Blanchard]

Hi,

> But the function called schedule - mustn't gcc assume that schedule 
> writes into global variables?
> As far as I can see that sounds like a gcc bug.

Yes gcc knows we need to reload across a function call, but it also
knows that the get_cpu function uses no global variables.

> Could you try how many get_cpu calls are generated by the attached testapp?

I changed the code a bit so that get_cpu() is now inline - this
represents our situation better. I think it is valid for gcc to cache
get_cpu across a function call in the below example because it knows
that get_cpu does not refer to any global variables.

I brought it up in case gcc optimises your get_tr the same way (I cant
remember what the operand constraints on it were now, if it was only a
register then you might see it).

(The disassembly of the below has only one mfspr and it caches the
result across schedule).

Anton

int cpu;

static void schedule(void);

static inline int get_cpu(void) __attribute__((pure));
static inline int get_cpu(void)
{
	int ret;
	__asm__ ("mfspr %0, 0x113"
			: "=r" (ret)
			:);

	return ret;
}

int main(void)
{
	int cpu1, cpu2, cpu3, cpu4;
	cpu1 = get_cpu();
	cpu2 = get_cpu();
	schedule();
	cpu3 = get_cpu();
	cpu4 = get_cpu();
	printf("the cpu values were %d %d %d %d.\n",
		cpu1, cpu2, cpu3, cpu4);
	return 0;
}

static void schedule(void)
{
	cpu = 2;
	printf("schedule called .\n");
}