Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1210990
| From | "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86, bitops, variable_test_bit should return 1 not -1 on a match |
| Date | 2015-08-21 10:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pZPyG-6cu-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <pZfbP-3Xo-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <pZOsW-4qZ-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Wrong fix, though. Instead we should change it to use the set instruction, which would also make it easier to use the CC_SET/CC_OUT proposed macros to use assembly out in the future. The downside with set is that it only sets a single byte, the upside is that it always outputs 0 or 1, and apparently if the output variable is your bool gcc can use that for optimization. On August 20, 2015 11:51:03 PM PDT, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote: > >* Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com> wrote: > >> This issue was noticed while debugging a CPU hotplug issue. On x86 >> with (NR_CPUS > 1) the cpu_online() define is cpumask_test_cpu(). >> cpumask_test_cpu() should return 1 if the cpu is set in cpumask and >> 0 otherwise. >> >> However, cpumask_test_cpu() returns -1 if the cpu in the cpumask is >> set and 0 otherwise. This happens because cpumask_test_cpu() calls >> test_bit() which is a define that will call variable_test_bit(). >> >> variable_test_bit() calls the assembler instruction sbb (Subtract >> with Borrow, " Subtracts the source from the destination, and >subtracts 1 >> extra if the Carry Flag is set. Results are returned in "dest".) >> >> A bit match results in -1 being returned from variable_test_bit() if >a >> match occurs, not 1 as the function is supposed to. This can be >easily >> resolved by adding a "!!" to force 0 or 1 as a return. >> >> It looks like the code never does, for example, (test_bit() == 1) so >this >> change should not have any impact. >> >> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> >> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com> >> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> >> Cc: x86@kernel.org >> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> Signed-off-by: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com> >> --- >> arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h >b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h >> index cfe3b95..a87a5fb 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h >> @@ -320,7 +320,7 @@ static inline int variable_test_bit(long nr, >volatile const unsigned long *addr) >> : "=r" (oldbit) >> : "m" (*(unsigned long *)addr), "Ir" (nr)); >> >> - return oldbit; >> + return !!oldbit; >> } >> >> #if 0 /* Fool kernel-doc since it doesn't do macros yet */ > >Ok, I think this is a good fix to improve the robustness of this >primitive, unless >someone objects. > >I tried to find the CPU hotplug code that broke with cpu_online() >returning -1 but >failed - all current mainline usage sites seem to be testing for >nonzero in one >way or another. Could you please point it out? > >Thanks, > > Ingo -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH] x86, bitops, variable_test_bit should return 1 not -1 on a match Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2015-08-21 09:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] x86, bitops, variable_test_bit should return 1 not -1 on a match "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> - 2015-08-21 10:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] x86, bitops, variable_test_bit should return 1 not -1 on a match Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com> - 2015-08-21 14:00 +0200
[PATCH v2] x86, bitops, variable_test_bit should return 1 not -1 on a match Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com> - 2015-08-24 20:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] x86, bitops, variable_test_bit should return 1 not -1 on a match Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com> - 2015-08-21 14:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] x86, bitops, variable_test_bit should return 1 not -1 on a match Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2015-08-22 11:20 +0200
csiph-web