Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1280298 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-30 22:30 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-12-01 16:40 +0100 |
| Articles | 4 — 4 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: no-op delay loops Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> - 2015-11-30 22:30 +0100
Re: no-op delay loops Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2015-11-30 22:50 +0100
Re: no-op delay loops Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> - 2015-12-01 02:30 +0100
Re: no-op delay loops Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net> - 2015-12-01 16:40 +0100
| From | Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 22:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: no-op delay loops |
| Message-ID | <qAEbg-uO-33@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Fri, Nov 27 2015, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > On Friday 27 November 2015 09:53:50 Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >> >> It seems that gcc happily compiles >> >> for (i = 0; i < 1000000000; ++i) ; >> >> into simply >> >> i = 1000000000; >> >> (which is then usually eliminated as a dead store). At least at -O2, and >> when i is not declared volatile. So it would seem that the loops at >> >> arch/mips/pci/pci-rt2880.c:235 >> arch/mips/pmcs-msp71xx/msp_setup.c:80 >> arch/mips/sni/reset.c:35 >> >> actually don't do anything. (In the middle one, i is 'register', but >> that doesn't change anything.) Is mips compiled with some special flags >> that would make gcc actually emit code for the above? >> > > I remember that gcc used to not optimize code that looked like a > delay loop such as the above, and my tests show that this was still > the case in gcc-4.0.3, but starting with gcc-4.1 it opimtized away > that loop. OK, thanks. That's a very very long time ago. FWIW, the remaining instances that my trivial coccinelle script found are ./arch/alpha/boot/main.c:187:1-4: no-op delay loop ./arch/m68k/68000/m68VZ328.c:86:10-13: no-op delay loop ./arch/m68k/bvme6000/config.c:338:2-5: no-op delay loop ./arch/m68k/coldfire/m53xx.c:533:1-4: no-op delay loop ./drivers/cpufreq/cris-artpec3-cpufreq.c:85:3-6: no-op delay loop ./drivers/cpufreq/cris-etraxfs-cpufreq.c:85:3-6: no-op delay loop ./drivers/tty/hvc/hvc_opal.c:313:3-6: no-op delay loop ./drivers/tty/hvc/hvc_vio.c:289:3-6: no-op delay loop (cc += a few people). The tty ones use volatile, so they probably work, though one might still want to use the *delay API. Rasmus -- 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/
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 22:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qAEuD-Cc-31@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1280298 |
On Monday 30 November 2015 22:29:26 Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > > OK, thanks. That's a very very long time ago. > > FWIW, the remaining instances that my trivial coccinelle script found > are > > ./arch/alpha/boot/main.c:187:1-4: no-op delay loop > ./arch/m68k/68000/m68VZ328.c:86:10-13: no-op delay loop > ./arch/m68k/bvme6000/config.c:338:2-5: no-op delay loop > ./arch/m68k/coldfire/m53xx.c:533:1-4: no-op delay loop > ./drivers/cpufreq/cris-artpec3-cpufreq.c:85:3-6: no-op delay loop > ./drivers/cpufreq/cris-etraxfs-cpufreq.c:85:3-6: no-op delay loop > ./drivers/tty/hvc/hvc_opal.c:313:3-6: no-op delay loop > ./drivers/tty/hvc/hvc_vio.c:289:3-6: no-op delay loop > > (cc += a few people). The tty ones use volatile, so they probably work, > though one might still want to use the *delay API. > > I suspect the tty users do it like this to get console output before calibrate_delay_loop() is called. Ard -- 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/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 02:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qAHVx-2Vf-31@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1280298 |
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:29:26PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> OK, thanks. That's a very very long time ago.
>
> FWIW, the remaining instances that my trivial coccinelle script found
> are
After your initial report I also wrote a coccinelle which is looking
also for delay loops implemented in while loops. It found the following
two:
diff -u -p ./drivers/video/uvesafb.c /tmp/nothing/drivers/video/uvesafb.c
--- ./drivers/video/uvesafb.c
+++ /tmp/nothing/drivers/video/uvesafb.c
@@ -1142,7 +1142,6 @@ static int uvesafb_blank(int blank, stru
vga_wseq(NULL, 0x00, seq);
crtc17 |= vga_rcrt(NULL, 0x17) & ~0x80;
- while (loop--);
vga_wcrt(NULL, 0x17, crtc17);
vga_wseq(NULL, 0x00, 0x03);
} else
diff -u -p ./arch/mips/pmc-sierra/yosemite/atmel_read_eeprom.c /tmp/nothing/arch/mips/pmc-sierra/yosemite/atmel_read_eeprom.c
--- ./arch/mips/pmc-sierra/yosemite/atmel_read_eeprom.c
+++ /tmp/nothing/arch/mips/pmc-sierra/yosemite/atmel_read_eeprom.c
@@ -37,7 +37,6 @@
static void delay(int delay)
{
- while (delay--);
}
static void send_bit(unsigned char bit)
The 2nd file falls into my domain so I'm going to fix it. Not sure
how the uvesafb one should be treated.
Ralf
--
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/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-01 16:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qAVc7-30Q-35@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1280298 |
On 11/30/2015 01:29 PM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > ./arch/alpha/boot/main.c:187:1-4: no-op delay loop Not sure why this is there. The runkernel function that preceeds it cannot return, having performed an indirect branch (not a call) to the kernel start. I see no reason to actually change anything, unless someone insists that this be remove to avoid future similar analysis. r~ -- 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/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web