Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-176721-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Feedback-ID: i56a14606:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-443-g0dc955c2a-fm-20240507.001-g0dc955c2
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <8dd1c466-54e3-45c1-a19f-f81dd9dbf243@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a1331c86-dc07-4635-b169-623fcdd11824@paulmck-laptop>
References: <71feb004-82ef-4c7b-9e21-0264607e4b20@app.fastmail.com>
 <e383dfe5-814a-4a87-befc-4831a7788f42@app.fastmail.com>
 <6e6dae45ffbf7a6ab54175695a3e21207c6f5126.camel@physik.fu-berlin.de>
 <46543a98-4767-471a-91be-20fb60ab138b@paulmck-laptop>
 <7432d241b538819b603194bfb3a306faf360d4b1.camel@physik.fu-berlin.de>
 <a1331c86-dc07-4635-b169-623fcdd11824@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Sat, 11 May 2024 22:08:50 +0200
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
 "John Paul Adrian Glaubitz" <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>
Cc: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux-Arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
 linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org,
 "Richard Henderson" <richard.henderson@linaro.org>,
 "Ivan Kokshaysky" <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
 "Matt Turner" <mattst88@gmail.com>,
 "Alexander Viro" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] alpha: cleanups and build fixes for 6.10
Content-Type: text/plain

On Sat, May 11, 2024, at 21:37, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 08:49:08PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>
> The pre-EV56 Alphas have no byte store instruction, correct?
>
> If that is in fact correct, what code is generated for a volatile store
> to a single byte for those CPUs?  For example, for this example?
>
> 	char c;
>
> 	...
>
> 	WRITE_ONCE(c, 3);
>
> The rumor I heard is that the compilers will generate a non-atomic
> read-modify-write instruction sequence in this case, first reading the
> 32-bit word containing that byte into a register, then substituting the
> value to be stored into corresponding byte of that register, and finally
> doing a 32-bit store from that register.
>
> Is that the case, or am I confused?

I think it's slightly worse: gcc will actually do a 64-bit
read-modify-write rather than a 32-bit one, and it doesn't
use atomic ll/sc when storing into an _Atomic struct member:

echo '#include <stdatomic.h>^M struct s { _Atomic char c; _Atomic char s[7]; long l; }; void f(struct s *s) { atomic_store(&s->c, 3); }' | alpha-linux-gcc-14  -xc - -S -o- -O2 -mcpu=ev5

f:
	.frame $30,0,$26,0
$LFB0:
	.cfi_startproc
	.prologue 0
	mb
	lda $1,3($31)
	insbl $1,$16,$1
	ldq_u $2,0($16)
	mskbl $2,$16,$2
	bis $1,$2,$1
	stq_u $1,0($16)
	bis $31,$31,$31
	mb
	ret $31,($26),1
	.cfi_endproc
$LFE0:
	.end f

compared to -mcpu=ev56:

f:
	.frame $30,0,$26,0
$LFB0:
	.cfi_startproc
	.prologue 0
	mb
	lda $1,3($31)
	stb $1,0($16)
	bis $31,$31,$31
	mb
	ret $31,($26),1
	.cfi_endproc
$LFE0:
	.end f

      Arnd