From owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Aug  7 12:22:40 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C37BC37B407; Thu,  7 Aug 2003 12:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 1DA0A43F3F; Thu,  7 Aug 2003 12:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.8/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h77JMbuN003804;
	Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:22:37 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:22:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com
To: "Portante, Peter" <peter.portante@hp.com>
In-Reply-To: <B24FABB430F7C94D942D6386447C93DC0512B561@tayexc17.americas.cpqcorp.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10308071517360.29641-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: deischen@freebsd.org
cc: alpha@freebsd.org
cc: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net>
Subject: RE: Atomic swap
X-BeenThere: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: deischen@freebsd.org
List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Alpha <freebsd-alpha.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-alpha>,
	<mailto:freebsd-alpha-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-alpha>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-alpha-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-alpha>,
	<mailto:freebsd-alpha-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 19:22:41 -0000

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Portante, Peter wrote:

> Dan,
> 
> > ----------
> > From: 	Daniel Eischen
> > Reply To: 	deischen@freebsd.org
> > Sent: 	Thursday, August 7, 2003 3:05 PM
> > To: 	Marcel Moolenaar
> > Cc: 	Portante, Peter; alpha@freebsd.org; deischen@freebsd.org
> > Subject: 	Re: Atomic swap
> > 
> > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> > 
> > > static __inline void
> > > atomic_swap_long(volatile long *dst, long val, long *res)
> > > {
> > > 	__asm (	"1: ldq_l   t0,%0\n"
> > > 		"   mov     %1,t1\n"
> > 
> > If I swap the first 2 instructions:
> > 
> > 	__asm ( "1: mov     %1,t1\n"
> > 		    ldq_l   t0,%0\n"
> > 
> > that eliminates 1 instruction from between the locked
> > instructions.  Is there anything wrong with doing that?
> > 
> Actually, the processor has a chance to do something while waiting for
> memory, so it does not hurt to have the mov inside the ldq_l/stq_c pair.

I'm just thinking that it could narrow the window in which
you can get a contention, but if the window is the same
regardless of the order of those 2 instructions, then
that's OK.

-- 
Dan Eischen