From: "'Naveen N. Rao'" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@au1.ibm.com>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"daniel@iogearbox.net" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
"ast@fb.com" <ast@fb.com>,
Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] powerpc: bpf: implement in-register swap for 64-bit endian operations
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:52:27 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170123192227.GE3820@naverao1-tp.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1484492458.11927.17.camel@au1.ibm.com>
On 2017/01/15 09:00AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-01-13 at 23:22 +0530, 'Naveen N. Rao' wrote:
> > > That rather depends on whether the processor has a store to load forwarder
> > > that will satisfy the read from the store buffer.
> > > I don't know about ppc, but at least some x86 will do that.
> >
> > Interesting - good to know that.
> >
> > However, I don't think powerpc does that and in-register swap is likely
> > faster regardless. Note also that gcc prefers this form at higher
> > optimization levels.
>
> Of course powerpc has a load-store forwarder these days, however, I
> wouldn't be surprised if the in-register form was still faster on some
> implementations, but this needs to be tested.
Thanks for clarifying! To test this, I wrote a simple (perhaps naive)
test that just issues a whole lot of endian swaps and in _that_ test, it
does look like the load-store forwarder is doing pretty well.
The tests:
bpf-bswap.S:
-----------
.file "bpf-bswap.S"
.abiversion 2
.section ".text"
.align 2
.globl main
.type main, @function
main:
mflr 0
std 0,16(1)
stdu 1,-32760(1)
addi 3,1,32
li 4,0
li 5,32720
li 11,32720
mulli 11,11,8
li 10,0
li 7,16
1: ldx 6,3,4
stdx 6,1,7
ldbrx 6,1,7
stdx 6,3,4
addi 4,4,8
cmpd 4,5
beq 2f
b 1b
2: addi 10,10,1
li 4,0
cmpd 10,11
beq 3f
b 1b
3: li 3,0
addi 1,1,32760
ld 0,16(1)
mtlr 0
blr
bpf-bswap-reg.S:
---------------
.file "bpf-bswap-reg.S"
.abiversion 2
.section ".text"
.align 2
.globl main
.type main, @function
main:
mflr 0
std 0,16(1)
stdu 1,-32760(1)
addi 3,1,32
li 4,0
li 5,32720
li 11,32720
mulli 11,11,8
li 10,0
1: ldx 6,3,4
rldicl 7,6,32,32
rlwinm 8,6,24,0,31
rlwimi 8,6,8,8,15
rlwinm 9,7,24,0,31
rlwimi 8,6,8,24,31
rlwimi 9,7,8,8,15
rlwimi 9,7,8,24,31
rldicr 8,8,32,31
or 6,8,9
stdx 6,3,4
addi 4,4,8
cmpd 4,5
beq 2f
b 1b
2: addi 10,10,1
li 4,0
cmpd 10,11
beq 3f
b 1b
3: li 3,0
addi 1,1,32760
ld 0,16(1)
mtlr 0
blr
Profiling the two variants:
# perf stat ./bpf-bswap
Performance counter stats for './bpf-bswap':
1395.979224 task-clock (msec) # 0.999 CPUs utilized
0 context-switches # 0.000 K/sec
0 cpu-migrations # 0.000 K/sec
45 page-faults # 0.032 K/sec
4,651,874,673 cycles # 3.332 GHz (66.87%)
3,141,186 stalled-cycles-frontend # 0.07% frontend cycles idle (50.57%)
1,117,289,485 stalled-cycles-backend # 24.02% backend cycles idle (50.57%)
8,565,963,861 instructions # 1.84 insn per cycle
# 0.13 stalled cycles per insn (67.05%)
2,174,029,771 branches # 1557.351 M/sec (49.69%)
262,656 branch-misses # 0.01% of all branches (50.05%)
1.396893189 seconds time elapsed
# perf stat ./bpf-bswap-reg
Performance counter stats for './bpf-bswap-reg':
1819.758102 task-clock (msec) # 0.999 CPUs utilized
3 context-switches # 0.002 K/sec
0 cpu-migrations # 0.000 K/sec
44 page-faults # 0.024 K/sec
6,034,777,602 cycles # 3.316 GHz (66.83%)
2,010,983 stalled-cycles-frontend # 0.03% frontend cycles idle (50.47%)
1,024,975,759 stalled-cycles-backend # 16.98% backend cycles idle (50.52%)
16,043,732,849 instructions # 2.66 insn per cycle
# 0.06 stalled cycles per insn (67.01%)
2,148,710,750 branches # 1180.767 M/sec (49.57%)
268,046 branch-misses # 0.01% of all branches (49.52%)
1.821501345 seconds time elapsed
This is all in a POWER8 vm. On POWER7, the in-register variant is around
4 times faster than the ldbrx variant.
So, yes, unless I've missed something, the ldbrx variant seems to
perform better, if not on par with the in-register swap variant on
POWER8.
>
> Ideally, you'd want to try to "optimize" load+swap or swap+store
> though.
Agreed. This is already the case with BPF for packet access - those use
skb helpers which issue the appropriate lhbrx/lwbrx/ldbrx. The newer
BPF_FROM_LE/BPF_FROM_BE are for endian operations with other BPF
programs.
We can probably implement an extra pass to detect use of endian swap and
try to match it up with a previous load or a subsequent store though...
Thanks!
- Naveen
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-23 19:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-13 17:10 [PATCH 1/3] powerpc: bpf: remove redundant check for non-null image Naveen N. Rao
2017-01-13 17:10 ` [PATCH 2/3] powerpc: bpf: flush the entire JIT buffer Naveen N. Rao
2017-01-13 20:10 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2017-01-13 22:55 ` Daniel Borkmann
2017-01-27 0:40 ` [2/3] " Michael Ellerman
2017-01-13 17:10 ` [PATCH 3/3] powerpc: bpf: implement in-register swap for 64-bit endian operations Naveen N. Rao
2017-01-13 17:17 ` David Laight
2017-01-13 17:17 ` David Laight
2017-01-13 17:52 ` 'Naveen N. Rao'
2017-01-15 15:00 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2017-01-23 19:22 ` 'Naveen N. Rao' [this message]
2017-01-24 16:13 ` David Laight
2017-01-24 16:13 ` David Laight
2017-01-24 16:25 ` 'Naveen N. Rao'
2017-01-13 20:09 ` [PATCH 1/3] powerpc: bpf: remove redundant check for non-null image Alexei Starovoitov
2017-01-16 18:38 ` David Miller
2017-01-23 17:14 ` Naveen N. Rao
2017-01-23 17:14 ` Naveen N. Rao
2017-01-27 0:40 ` [1/3] " Michael Ellerman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170123192227.GE3820@naverao1-tp.localdomain \
--to=naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=David.Laight@ACULAB.COM \
--cc=ast@fb.com \
--cc=benh@au1.ibm.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.