From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S933683AbdDGMY0 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 7 Apr 2017 08:24:26 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58448 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S933605AbdDGMYS (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 7 Apr 2017 08:24:18 -0400
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 29A84C054C5E
Authentication-Results: ext-mx08.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
Authentication-Results: ext-mx08.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rkrcmar@redhat.com
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 29A84C054C5E
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 14:24:14 +0200
From: Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Christoffer Dall <cdall@linaro.org>, Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>,
        James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] KVM: use kvm_{test,clear}_request instead of
 {test,clear}_bit
Message-ID: <20170407122413.GC23559@potion>
References: <20170406202056.18379-1-rkrcmar@redhat.com>
 <20170406202056.18379-3-rkrcmar@redhat.com>
 <e7609664-6d84-9602-1861-9d037e5953d2@de.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <e7609664-6d84-9602-1861-9d037e5953d2@de.ibm.com>
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.32]); Fri, 07 Apr 2017 12:24:18 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

2017-04-07 12:55+0200, Christian Borntraeger:
> On 04/06/2017 10:20 PM, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>>  static inline bool kvm_check_request(int req, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  {
>> -	if (test_bit(req, &vcpu->requests)) {
>> -		clear_bit(req, &vcpu->requests);
>> +	if (kvm_test_request(req, vcpu)) {
>> +		kvm_clear_request(req, vcpu);
> 
> This looks fine. I am just asking myself why we do not use
> test_and_clear_bit? Do we expect gcc to merge all test bits as
> a fast path? This does not seem to work as far as I can tell and
> almost everybody does a fast path like in

test_and_clear_bit() is a slower operation even if the test is false (at
least on x86), because it needs to be fully atomic.

> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c:
>         if (!vcpu->requests)
>                 return 0;
> 
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c:
>     if (vcpu->requests) {

We'll mostly have only one request set, so splitting the test_and_clear
improves the performance of many subsequent tests_and_clear()s even if
the compiler doesn't optimize.

GCC couldn't even optimize if we used test_and_clear_bit(), because that
instruction adds barriers, but the forward check for vcpu->requests is
there because we do not trust the optimizer to do it for us and it would
make a big difference.