Re: [RFCv2 05/10] x86/mm: Provide untagged_addr() helper

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 09:21:16AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 05:27:46AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > +#define __untagged_addr(addr, n)	\
> > +	((__force __typeof__(addr))sign_extend64((__force u64)(addr), n))
> > +
> > +#define untagged_addr(addr)	({					\
> > +	u64 __addr = (__force u64)(addr);				\
> > +	if (__addr >> 63 == 0) {					\
> > +		if (current->thread.features & X86_THREAD_LAM_U57)	\
> > +			__addr &= __untagged_addr(__addr, 56);		\
> > +		else if (current->thread.features & X86_THREAD_LAM_U48)	\
> > +			__addr &= __untagged_addr(__addr, 47);		\
> > +	}								\
> > +	(__force __typeof__(addr))__addr;				\
> > +})
> 
> Assuming you got your bits in hardware order:
> 
> 	u64 __addr = addr;
> 	if ((s64)__addr >= 0) {
> 		int lam = (current->thread.features >> X86_THREAD_LAM_U57) & 3;

That needs a _BIT suffix or something, same in the previous reply.

> 		if (lam)
> 			__addr &= sign_extend64(__addr, 65 - 9*lam);
> 	}
> 	__addr;
> 
> has less branches on and should definitely result in better code (or I
> need more morning juice).

I definitely needs more morning juice :-)