[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH]: R10000 Needs LL/SC Workaround in Gcc

To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: R10000 Needs LL/SC Workaround in Gcc
From: Ralf Baechle <>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 23:45:09 +0000
Cc: Richard Sandiford <>, Kumba <>,, Linux MIPS List <>
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <87abcjibsl.fsf@firetop.home> <>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 08:33:03PM +0000, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:

> > There are two ways we could handle this:
> > 
> >   - Make -mfix-r10000 require -mbranch-likely.  (It mustn't _imply_
> >     -mbranch-likely.  It should simply check that -mbranch-likely is
> >     already in effect.)
> > 
> >   - Make -mfix-r10000 insert nops when -mbranch-likely is not in effect.
>  If I recall right, these is something special about the pipeline in this 
> context making the branch-likely instructions the only ones that work.  
> Which would make the option you proposed first the only viable.  I am not 
> absolutely sure and I have no reference handy.  Perhaps Ralf or someone at 
> linux-mips will know?

There are two possible workarounds.  The other which IRIX and the Linux
kernel are using is based on the branch-likely instruction.  The way it
works is that R10000 family processors have a fairly cheesy branch
prediction for branch likely (unlike all MIPS32 and MIPS64 processors I
know of!) which predicts branch likely instructions as always taken.  So
if a SC instruction succeeds the loop closure branch of the usual LL/SC
loop will be miss-predicted and the pipeline restarted.

The alternative is to put enough NOPs (upto 28) after the loop closure
brach to avoid a sequence of 4 problematic instructions being active in
the pipeline at the same time.

SSNOP won't cut it btw.  SSNOP don't have any influence on the predecode
and reordering buffers - even assuming the R10000 actually honors SSNOP.
Implementing the special treatment of SSNOP (which is encoded as
SLL $0, $0, 1) just doesn't make sense for an R10000 calibre processor.

Is gcc capable of guaranteeing a certain minimum number of instructions
between one LL and another LL instruction?  Then this knowledge could be
used to avoid the branch likely or cut down the padding NOPs.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>