Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sun, 18 Aug 2019 07:01:35 -0500
From:   Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: optimise WARN_ON()
Message-ID: <20190818120135.GV31406@gate.crashing.org>
References: <20190817090442.C5FEF106613@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190817090442.C5FEF106613@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 09:04:42AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Unlike BUG_ON(x), WARN_ON(x) uses !!(x) as the trigger
> of the t(d/w)nei instruction instead of using directly the
> value of x.
> 
> This leads to GCC adding unnecessary pair of addic/subfe.

And it has to, it is passed as an "r" to an asm, GCC has to put the "!!"
value into a register.

> By using (x) instead of !!(x) like BUG_ON() does, the additional
> instructions go away:

But is it correct?  What happens if you pass an int to WARN_ON, on a
64-bit kernel?

(You might want to have 64-bit generate either tw or td.  But, with
your __builtin_trap patch, all that will be automatic).


Segher