RE: [PATCH] powerpc/32: Don't use lmw/stmw for saving/restoring non volatile regs
From: David Laight <hidden>
Date: 2021-08-25 08:42:42
Also in:
lkml
From: Segher Boessenkool
Sent: 24 August 2021 16:28
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 08:16:00AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:quoted
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 07:54:22AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:quoted
quoted
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.
Is the cpu as brain-damaged as the (old) strongarm (SA1100 etc) where ldm/stm always took 1 clock to check each register bit regardless of the number of registers to copy? (IIRC it also took the same length of time when conditionally not executed.) If x86 had ever had ldm/stm then it would end up being a microcoded instruction and take forever to decode. Intel never managed to optimise 'loop' (dec %cx and jump nz). David - Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)