Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 16:30:02 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: c.jayachandran@gmail.com Cc: mips@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Review Message-ID: <20100717.163002.13040899182090510.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTil54b-Ige8jAzrugOLkoUwSNXCVvm_Xf9Xs56wj@mail.gmail.com> References: <20100715.161926.175946041864758761.imp@bsdimp.com> <AANLkTil54b-Ige8jAzrugOLkoUwSNXCVvm_Xf9Xs56wj@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <AANLkTil54b-Ige8jAzrugOLkoUwSNXCVvm_Xf9Xs56wj@mail.gmail.c=
om>
"Jayachandran C." <c.jayachandran@gmail.com> writes:
: On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 3:49 AM, M. Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrot=
e:
: > OK. =A0Please find enclosed a minor cleanup diff for assembler file=
s.
: > It moves ITLBNOPFIX and HAZARD_DELAY into a common header, as well =
as
: > replacing MIPS_CPU_NOP_DELAY with HAZARD_DELAY.
: >
: > The only real change is increasing the number of nops in a few plac=
es
: > from 4 to 5.
: >
: > This is in preparation for making these (a) much shorter and (b)
: > optimizing for specific CPUs... =A0mips32/mips64 define ssnop to de=
al
: > with the super-scaler effects (so ITLBNOPFIX can be shorter), and
: > mips32r2 and mips64r2 have eh, which can help with HAZARD_DELAY.
: >
: > The latter will need some careful study of the docs to make sure th=
at
: > the proper number of instructions are executed (which is why I'm no=
t
: > doing it yet :). =A0The former is just shuffling deck chairs, so sh=
ould be
: > invisible to people.
: >
: > Comments?
: =
: There is a mips_barrier() in cpufunc.h too which does similar things =
-
: and is confusingly named - we can to get rid of that too in a similar=
: way.
Yea, there's similar things in that file to the other stuff...
: Another cleanup I wanted to do for sometime is to get the status
: register settings into a header files and avoid the ifdef everywhere.=
I've wanted that too....
: Maybe cpuregs.h (or cpufunc.h) can add cpu_xlr.h/cpu_octeon.h etc
: which will have hazard/status/extra registers for the specific cpu.
Yea, that's a good idea, I think...
There's also lots of places we disable interrupts by writing to
STATUS, but that could be dealt with EI or DI...
Warner
: Thanks,
: JC.
: =
: =
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100717.163002.13040899182090510.imp>