| To: | ralf@linux-mips.org |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: WAIT vs. tickless kernel |
| From: | Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> |
| Date: | Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:23:43 +0900 (JST) |
| Cc: | linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| In-reply-to: | <20071107.003925.74752709.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <20071031163900.GB22871@linux-mips.org> <20071103.014649.122254137.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <20071107.003925.74752709.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:39:25 +0900 (JST), Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
wrote:
> + MFC0 k0, CP0_EPC
> + ori k0, 0x1f /* 32 byte rollback region */
> + xori k0, 0x1f
> + PTR_LA k1, r4k_wait
Well, this part should be like this, for better pipelining.
MFC0 k0, CP0_EPC
PTR_LA k1, r4k_wait
ori k0, 0x1f /* 32 byte rollback region */
xori k0, 0x1f
> + bne k0, k1, 9f
> + MTC0 k0, CP0_EPC
> +9:
And if we could assume branch-likely, this can be:
.set noreorder
beql k0, k1, 9f
MTC0 k0, CP0_EPC
9:
But not sure if it really have points.
> .align 5
> +BUILD_ROLLBACK_PROLOGUE handle_int
> NESTED(handle_int, PT_SIZE, sp)
And one more question: should we put one more ".align 5" just befor
handle_int for CPUs do not need the rollback?
---
Atsushi Nemoto
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [MIPS] Fix and cleanup the MIPS part of the (ab)use of CLOCK_TICK_RATE., Ralf Baechle |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Preliminary patch for ip32 ttyS* device, Giuseppe Sacco |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: WAIT vs. tickless kernel, Atsushi Nemoto |
| Next by Thread: | Re: WAIT vs. tickless kernel, Atsushi Nemoto |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |