From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] powerpc/bug: Remove specific powerpc BUG_ON() and WARN_ON() on PPC32
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 01:04:36 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1629989540.drlhb24t2w.astroid@bobo.none> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210826143708.GC1583@gate.crashing.org>
Excerpts from Segher Boessenkool's message of August 27, 2021 12:37 am:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 11:57:52PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>> Excerpts from Segher Boessenkool's message of August 26, 2021 10:49 pm:
>> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 01:26:14PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>> >> Excerpts from Segher Boessenkool's message of August 19, 2021 1:06 am:
>> >> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 04:08:13PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>> >> >> This one possibly the branches end up in predictors, whereas conditional
>> >> >> trap is always just speculated not to hit. Branches may also have a
>> >> >> throughput limit on execution whereas trap could be more (1 per cycle
>> >> >> vs 4 per cycle on POWER9).
>> >> >
>> >> > I thought only *taken* branches are just one per cycle?
>> >>
>> >> Taken branches are fetched by the front end at one per cycle (assuming
>> >> they hit the BTAC), but all branches have to be executed by BR at one
>> >> per cycle
>> >
>> > This is not true. (Simple) predicted not-taken conditional branches are
>> > just folded out, never hit the issue queues. And they are fetched as
>> > many together as fit in a fetch group, can complete without limits as
>> > well.
>>
>> No, they are all dispatched and issue to the BRU for execution. It's
>> trivial to construct a test of a lot of not taken branches in a row
>> and time a loop of it to see it executes at 1 cycle per branch.
>
> (s/dispatched/issued/)
?
>
> Huh, this was true on p8 already. Sorry for my confusion. In my
> defence, this doesn't matter for performance on "real code".
>
>> > Correctly predicted simple conditional branches just get their prediction
>> > validated (and that is not done in the execution units). Incorrectly
>> > predicted branches the same, but those cause a redirect and refetch.
>>
>> How could it validate prediction without issuing? It wouldn't know when
>> sources are ready.
>
> In the backend. But that is just how it worked on older cores :-/
Okay. I don't know about older cores than POWER9. Backend would normally
include execution though. Only other place you could do it if you don't
issue/exec would be after it goes back in order, like completion. But
that would be horrible for mispredict penalty.
>> >> The first problem seems like the show stopper though. AFAIKS it would
>> >> need a special builtin support that does something to create the table
>> >> entry, or a guarantee that we could put an inline asm right after the
>> >> builtin as a recognized pattern and that would give us the instruction
>> >> following the trap.
>> >
>> > I'm not quite sure what this means. Can't you always just put a
>> >
>> > bla: asm("");
>> >
>> > in there, and use the address of "bla"?
>>
>> Not AFAIKS. Put it where?
>
> After wherever you want to know the address after. You will have to
> make sure they stay together somehow.
I still don't follow.
> It is much easier to get the address of something, not the address after
> it. If you know it is just one insn anyway, that isn't hard to handle
> either (even if prefixed insns exist).
>
>> > If not, you need to say a lot
>> > more about what you actually want to do :-/
>>
>> We need to put the address (or relative offset) of the trap instruction
>> into an entry in a different section. Basically this:
>>
>> __builtin_trap();
>> asm ("1: \n\t"
>> " .section __bug_table,\"aw\" \n\t"
>> "2: .4byte 1b - 2b - 4 \n\t"
>> " .previous");
>>
>> Where the 1: label must follow immediately after the trap instruction,
>> and where the asm must be emitted even for the case of no-return traps
>> (but anything following the asm could be omitted).
>
> The address *after* the trap insn? That is much much harder than the
> address *of* the trap insn.
No the address of the trap instruction, hence the -4. I have the label
after because that is the semantics I have from inline asm.
If you could give a built in that put a label at the address of the trap
instruction that could be used later by inline asm then that could work
too:
__builtin_labeled_trap("1:");
asm (" .section __bug_table,\"aw\" \n\t"
"2: .4byte 1b - 2b \n\t"
" .previous");
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-26 15:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-13 16:38 [PATCH v2 1/2] powerpc/bug: Remove specific powerpc BUG_ON() and WARN_ON() on PPC32 Christophe Leroy
2021-04-13 16:38 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] powerpc/bug: Provide better flexibility to WARN_ON/__WARN_FLAGS() with asm goto Christophe Leroy
2021-08-13 6:19 ` Nicholas Piggin
2021-08-15 3:49 ` Michael Ellerman
2021-08-25 21:25 ` Nathan Chancellor
2021-08-26 3:21 ` Michael Ellerman
2021-08-26 6:37 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-08-26 13:47 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-08-26 14:45 ` Michael Ellerman
2021-08-26 14:53 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-08-26 14:12 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-08-26 18:54 ` Nathan Chancellor
2021-08-26 23:55 ` Nathan Chancellor
2021-08-27 7:53 ` Michael Ellerman
2021-08-13 6:08 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] powerpc/bug: Remove specific powerpc BUG_ON() and WARN_ON() on PPC32 Nicholas Piggin
2021-08-18 15:06 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-08-26 3:26 ` Nicholas Piggin
2021-08-26 12:49 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-08-26 13:57 ` Nicholas Piggin
2021-08-26 14:37 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-08-26 15:04 ` Nicholas Piggin [this message]
2021-08-26 15:30 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-08-27 1:28 ` Nicholas Piggin
2021-08-18 13:38 ` 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=1629989540.drlhb24t2w.astroid@bobo.none \
--to=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=segher@kernel.crashing.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).