All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: x86@kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, hpa@zytor.com,
	torvalds@linuxfoundation.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org,
	peterz@infradead.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
	alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com, mhiramat@kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] x86: Remove ideal_nops[]
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 12:32:53 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210312113253.305040674@infradead.org> (raw)

Hi!

A while ago Steve complained about x86 being weird for having different NOPs [1]

Having cursed the same thing before, I figured it was time to look at the NOP
situation.

32bit simply isn't a performance target anymore, so all we need is a set of
NOPs that works on all.

x86_64 has two main NOP variants, NOPL and prefix NOP. NOPL was introduced by
P6 and is architecturally mandated for x86_64. However, some uarchs made the
choice to limit NOPL decoding to a single port, which obviously limits NOPL
throughput. Other uarchs have (severe) decoding penalties for excessive (>~3)
prefixes, hobbling prefix NOP throughput.

But the thing is, all the modern uarchs can handle both without issue; that is
AMD K10 (2007) and later and Intel Ivy Bridge (2012) and later. The only
exception is Atom, which has the prefix penalty.

Since ultimate performance of a 10 year old chip (Intel Sandy Bridge, 2011) is
simply irrelevant today, remove variable NOPs and use NOPL.

This gives us deterministic NOPs and restores sanity.



[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210302105827.3403656c@gandalf.local.home


             reply	other threads:[~2021-03-12 12:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-03-12 11:32 Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2021-03-12 11:32 ` [PATCH 1/2] x86: Remove dynamic NOP selection Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-12 12:09   ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-12 20:36     ` Linus Torvalds
2021-03-15 18:00   ` [tip: x86/cpu] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2024-01-20  6:58   ` [PATCH 1/2] " Thorsten Glaser
2024-01-20  8:22     ` H. Peter Anvin
2024-01-20 16:53       ` Thorsten Glaser
2024-01-21 23:21         ` H. Peter Anvin
2024-01-21 23:58           ` Thorsten Glaser
2024-01-22  0:15             ` H. Peter Anvin
2024-01-22  0:56               ` Steven Rostedt
2024-01-22  1:17                 ` Thorsten Glaser
2024-01-22  2:04                   ` H. Peter Anvin
2024-01-22  2:15                 ` H. Peter Anvin
2024-01-22  2:22                   ` Steven Rostedt
2024-01-22  2:31                     ` H. Peter Anvin
2024-01-20 17:00       ` Linus Torvalds
2024-01-20 17:19         ` Thorsten Glaser
2024-01-20 18:21           ` disassemblers (was Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Remove dynamic NOP selection) Thorsten Glaser
2024-01-21 22:36         ` [PATCH 1/2] x86: Remove dynamic NOP selection David Laight
2024-01-21 23:10           ` H. Peter Anvin
2021-03-12 11:32 ` [PATCH 2/2] objtool,x86: Use asm/nops.h Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-15 18:00   ` [tip: x86/cpu] objtool/x86: " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-12 14:29 ` [PATCH 0/2] x86: Remove ideal_nops[] Sedat Dilek
2021-03-12 14:47   ` Borislav Petkov
2021-03-12 17:26     ` Steven Rostedt
2021-03-12 17:35       ` Sedat Dilek
2021-03-12 17:46         ` Borislav Petkov
2021-03-12 17:47         ` Steven Rostedt
2021-03-12 18:13           ` Sedat Dilek
2021-03-12 19:03             ` Sedat Dilek
2021-03-12 20:59 ` Borislav Petkov
2021-03-13  5:26   ` Sedat Dilek
2021-03-13  8:49     ` Borislav Petkov
2021-03-13 11:23       ` Borislav Petkov
2021-03-13 12:10       ` Sedat Dilek
2021-03-13 12:15         ` Borislav Petkov
2021-03-13 12:38           ` Sedat Dilek
2021-03-13 12:49             ` Borislav Petkov
2021-03-13 12:58               ` Sedat Dilek
2021-03-13 13:29                 ` Borislav Petkov
2021-03-13 13:47                   ` Sedat Dilek
2021-03-15 17:04                     ` Sedat Dilek
2021-03-15 17:15                       ` Borislav Petkov
2021-03-15 17:19                         ` Sedat Dilek
2021-03-15 17:23                           ` Borislav Petkov
2021-03-15 18:10                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-15 18:23                         ` Sedat Dilek
2021-03-15 22:14                           ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-16  5:56                             ` Sedat Dilek
2021-03-27 12:08                               ` Sedat Dilek
2021-03-27 20:02                                 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-03-30 12:31                                   ` Sedat Dilek

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=20210312113253.305040674@infradead.org \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=x86@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.