Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:1d13:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id pp19csp2830870pxb; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 08:34:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx667fRfXAPI4FfP+0hO7wNu+jVvMrrwGYm9wO0wJOva9vxpjpGnTGts/rcIGhorUO0egCL X-Received: by 2002:a6b:28b:: with SMTP id 133mr31700637ioc.107.1629819261766; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 08:34:21 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1629819261; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=clD6n9z74ksQ+zpbD17axZkufEGyADYLAgGy1wCeuPx/xgylcsw52MAKZmY6lXzpQj wCRTtGMznEvaaqGkiK8pvS2NFI1q+Kc308StDS2WAxx0uw+OKNthu3GkcLcZ6HVEnn/f 287ae/sft1UXnKuIMSnIUKB5U8Tdqq1A2IoJH01BjEkfoWItWkQwzfcacdx6xjxCzIdt R0rjfNr52nsM4HlGlqUka1lkbTiDlBHxWE5Ta3SuK5oAxQTGRRmaiSrS0WQt36CkClBL fUv88VuXJRi6twojFu2PY12bdEEifJTFc2NkBn13SWkRBfkbwFzyFSiGCdoe5xYjOIKf +ATA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=2s4gBSJw+cSfqUFgp45nn3E5iUcK3zw+yFwDjD9bJpM=; b=mLp2dNFa4VmQo0MchSa2edNZ9fy/I7vruKp5p2mgxk23ApaIXVe5ecSqsZD+7ZrnVW 1147bcMV2nBtfx+pasSvBvh4esT+DfbYRrm3SPDJty0bJvF85qJF0CpjUulozvEnWMOL +Nv/YHMiGFZw99adibdUWOM06Xc8/M4DRk2zz9kbl6P48S49v9t98jktuA74jNIzvrOc U2fvi/mn0EwVVGwavI3pXVUBWmn5JzzeSoiFxOjhW51lEJ/uB0mj0/6nZja2Nqg+HH3d SwBTsTQYCLaw1S2zKhd5qMm4rTQChJbFQU7iWgDFrVBw05auuo3swqLwcFayc8XLKxuk 75Vg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id n123si20721207iof.15.2021.08.24.08.34.05; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 08:34:21 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S238344AbhHXPdZ (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:33:25 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:35656 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238217AbhHXPdY (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:33:24 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id 17OFSFBJ017344; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 10:28:15 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 17OFSEsh017341; Tue, 24 Aug 2021 10:28:14 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 10:28:13 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Christophe Leroy Cc: Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/32: Don't use lmw/stmw for saving/restoring non volatile regs Message-ID: <20210824152813.GG1583@gate.crashing.org> References: <316c543b8906712c108985c8463eec09c8db577b.1629732542.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> <20210823184648.GY1583@gate.crashing.org> <9bbc9797-cfc7-1484-90ad-2146ff1a5e18@csgroup.eu> <20210824131600.GF1583@gate.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210824131600.GF1583@gate.crashing.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 08:16:00AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 07:54:22AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > >On mpccore both lmw and stmw are only N+1 btw. But the serialization > > >might cost another cycle here? > > > > That coherent on MPC8xx, that's only 2 cycles. > > But on the mpc832x which has a e300c2 core, it looks like I have 10 cycles > > difference. Is anything wrong ? > > I don't know that core very well, I'll have a look. So, I don't see any difference between e300c2 and e300c1 (which is 603 basically, for this) that is significant here. The e300c2 has two integer units instead of just one, but it still has only one load/store unit, and I don't see anything else that could matter either. Huh. Segher