From: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
To: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>
Cc: WANG Xuerui <kernel@xen0n.name>,
Xuefeng Li <lixuefeng@loongson.cn>,
Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@loongson.cn>, Jun Yi <yijun@loongson.cn>,
Rui Wang <wangrui@loongson.cn>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com>,
loongarch@lists.linux.dev, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] LoongArch: No need to call RESTORE_ALL_AND_RET for all syscalls
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 10:09:59 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d782be07-1cfa-626f-d9f5-d151bd091214@loongson.cn> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1a431c16-ecef-f7e9-4c4f-936e4bb3aeea@loongson.cn>
Cc loongarch@lists.linux.dev
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>
On 06/23/2022 08:43 AM, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> Cc Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com>
>
> On 06/22/2022 06:01 PM, Huacai Chen wrote:
>> Hi, Tiezhu,
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 6:08 PM Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> In handle_syscall, it is unnecessary to call RESTORE_ALL_AND_RET
>>> for all syscalls.
>>>
>>> (1) rt_sigreturn call RESTORE_ALL_AND_RET.
>>> (2) The other syscalls call RESTORE_STATIC_SOME_SP_AND_RET.
>>>
>>> This patch only adds the minimal changes as simple as possible
>>> to reduce the code complexity, at the same time, it can reduce
>>> many load instructions.
>>>
>>> Here are the test environments:
>>>
>>> Hardware: Loongson-LS3A5000-7A1000-1w-A2101
>>> Firmware: UDK2018-LoongArch-A2101-pre-beta8 [1]
>>> System: loongarch64-clfs-system-5.0 [2]
>>>
>>> The system passed functional testing used with the following
>>> test case without and with this patch:
>>>
>>> git clone https://github.com/hevz/sigaction-test.git
>>> cd sigaction-test
>>> make check
>>>
>>> Additionally, use UnixBench syscall to test the performance:
>>>
>>> git clone https://github.com/kdlucas/byte-unixbench.git
>>> cd byte-unixbench/UnixBench/
>>> make
>>> pgms/syscall 600
>>>
>>> In order to avoid the performance impact, add init=/bin/bash
>>> to the boot cmdline.
>>>
>>> Here is the test result, the bigger the better, it shows about
>>> 1.2% gain tested with close, getpid and exec [3]:
>>>
>>> duration without_this_patch with_this_patch
>>> 600 s 626558267 lps 634244079 lps
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/loongson/Firmware/tree/main/5000Series/PC/A2101
>>> [2]
>>> https://github.com/sunhaiyong1978/CLFS-for-LoongArch/releases/tag/5.0
>>> [3]
>>> https://github.com/kdlucas/byte-unixbench/blob/master/UnixBench/src/syscall.c
>>>
>> I test your patch and the whole UnixBench result is like this:
>>
>> Before patch, single thread:
>>
>> System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT
>> INDEX
>> Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 9235787.7
>> 791.4
>> Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 2758.7
>> 501.6
>> Execl Throughput 43.0 2386.8
>> 555.1
>> File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 191752.0
>> 484.2
>> File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 78737.9
>> 475.8
>> File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 297402.5
>> 512.8
>> Pipe Throughput 12440.0 353658.1
>> 284.3
>> Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 120140.8
>> 300.4
>> Process Creation 126.0 5735.0
>> 455.2
>> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 2701.5
>> 637.1
>> Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 894.9
>> 1491.5
>> System Call Overhead 15000.0 557467.4
>> 371.6
>>
>> ========
>> System Benchmarks Index Score
>> 516.1
>>
>> After patch, single thread:
>>
>> System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT
>> INDEX
>> Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 9235688.9
>> 791.4
>> Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 2758.7
>> 501.6
>> Execl Throughput 43.0 2377.8
>> 553.0
>> File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 192545.5
>> 486.2
>> File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 79735.0
>> 481.8
>> File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 299621.9
>> 516.6
>> Pipe Throughput 12440.0 354969.1
>> 285.3
>> Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 118307.5
>> 295.8
>> Process Creation 126.0 5757.0
>> 456.9
>> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 2695.4
>> 635.7
>> Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 894.4
>> 1490.6
>> System Call Overhead 15000.0 563582.7
>> 375.7
>>
>> ========
>> System Benchmarks Index Score
>> 517.0
>>
>> Before patch, multi-threads:
>>
>> System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT
>> INDEX
>> Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 36943633.4
>> 3165.7
>> Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 11035.8
>> 2006.5
>> Execl Throughput 43.0 8800.1
>> 2046.5
>> File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 277638.3
>> 701.1
>> File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 92530.5
>> 559.1
>> File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 524344.3
>> 904.0
>> Pipe Throughput 12440.0 1359237.2
>> 1092.6
>> Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 571511.4
>> 1428.8
>> Process Creation 126.0 20823.3
>> 1652.6
>> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 6883.9
>> 1623.6
>> Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 981.7
>> 1636.1
>> System Call Overhead 15000.0 2029539.8
>> 1353.0
>>
>> ========
>> System Benchmarks Index Score
>> 1367.4
>>
>> After patch, multi-threads:
>>
>> System Benchmarks Index Values BASELINE RESULT
>> INDEX
>> Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 36943793.6
>> 3165.7
>> Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 11035.5
>> 2006.4
>> Execl Throughput 43.0 8768.3
>> 2039.1
>> File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 277962.9
>> 701.9
>> File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 92059.7
>> 556.3
>> File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 525937.5
>> 906.8
>> Pipe Throughput 12440.0 1361566.6
>> 1094.5
>> Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 575835.4
>> 1439.6
>> Process Creation 126.0 20426.4
>> 1621.1
>> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 6877.5
>> 1622.0
>> Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 980.3
>> 1633.8
>> System Call Overhead 15000.0 2049771.6
>> 1366.5
>>
>> ========
>> System Benchmarks Index Score
>> 1366.6
>>
>> From my point of view, the benefit is negligible.
>
> There is another way to look at what is going on.
> This patch is related with syscall, I prefer to
> observe "System Call Overhead" in the test results.
>
> Here are the INDEX of "System Call Overhead" in your test results:
>
> thread before_patch after_patch gain
> single 371.6 375.7 1.103%
> multi 1353.0 1366.5 0.998%
>
> For now, I would like to wait for other people's review.
> If the conclusion is the optimization is meaningless,
> I am fine with ignoring this patch.
Any comments will be much appreciated.
Here is the link:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1655806074-17454-3-git-send-email-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn/
Thanks,
Tiezhu
>
> Thanks,
> Tiezhu
>
>>
>>
>> Huacai
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
>>> ---
>>> arch/loongarch/include/asm/stackframe.h | 5 +++++
>>> arch/loongarch/kernel/entry.S | 15 +++++++++++++++
>>> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/stackframe.h
>>> b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/stackframe.h
>>> index 4ca9530..551ab8f 100644
>>> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/stackframe.h
>>> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/stackframe.h
>>> @@ -216,4 +216,9 @@
>>> RESTORE_SP_AND_RET \docfi
>>> .endm
>>>
>>> + .macro RESTORE_STATIC_SOME_SP_AND_RET docfi=0
>>> + RESTORE_STATIC \docfi
>>> + RESTORE_SOME \docfi
>>> + RESTORE_SP_AND_RET \docfi
>>> + .endm
>>> #endif /* _ASM_STACKFRAME_H */
>>> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/kernel/entry.S
>>> b/arch/loongarch/kernel/entry.S
>>> index d5b3dbc..c764c99 100644
>>> --- a/arch/loongarch/kernel/entry.S
>>> +++ b/arch/loongarch/kernel/entry.S
>>> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
>>> #include <asm/regdef.h>
>>> #include <asm/stackframe.h>
>>> #include <asm/thread_info.h>
>>> +#include <asm/unistd.h>
>>>
>>> .text
>>> .cfi_sections .debug_frame
>>> @@ -62,9 +63,23 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(handle_syscall)
>>> li.d tp, ~_THREAD_MASK
>>> and tp, tp, sp
>>>
>>> + /* Syscall number held in a7, we can store it in TI_SYSCALL. */
>>> + LONG_S a7, tp, TI_SYSCALL
>>> +
>>> move a0, sp
>>> bl do_syscall
>>>
>>> + /*
>>> + * Syscall number held in a7 which is stored in TI_SYSCALL.
>>> + * rt_sigreturn call RESTORE_ALL_AND_RET.
>>> + * The other syscalls call RESTORE_STATIC_SOME_SP_AND_RET.
>>> + */
>>> + LONG_L t3, tp, TI_SYSCALL
>>> + li.w t4, __NR_rt_sigreturn
>>> + beq t3, t4, 1f
>>> +
>>> + RESTORE_STATIC_SOME_SP_AND_RET
>>> +1:
>>> RESTORE_ALL_AND_RET
>>> SYM_FUNC_END(handle_syscall)
>>>
>>> --
>>> 2.1.0
>>>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-25 2:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-21 10:07 [PATCH v2 0/2] LoongArch: Modify handle_syscall Tiezhu Yang
2022-06-21 10:07 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] LoongArch: Add TI_SYSCALL in output_thread_info_defines() Tiezhu Yang
2022-06-21 10:07 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] LoongArch: No need to call RESTORE_ALL_AND_RET for all syscalls Tiezhu Yang
2022-06-22 10:01 ` Huacai Chen
2022-06-23 0:43 ` Tiezhu Yang
2022-06-25 2:09 ` Tiezhu Yang [this message]
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=d782be07-1cfa-626f-d9f5-d151bd091214@loongson.cn \
--to=yangtiezhu@loongson.cn \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=chenhuacai@kernel.org \
--cc=guoren@kernel.org \
--cc=jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com \
--cc=kernel@xen0n.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lixuefeng@loongson.cn \
--cc=loongarch@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=lvjianmin@loongson.cn \
--cc=wangrui@loongson.cn \
--cc=yijun@loongson.cn \
/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.