From: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
To: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>,
"Johannes Berg" <johannes.berg@intel.com>,
Sara Sharon <sara.sharon@intel.com>,
"Adrian Hunter" <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: <x86@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Petition Intel/AMD to add POPF_IF insn
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 19:30:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <64bd8281-aeb4-391b-90c6-3f5e44f0ce07@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f2d39812-8e2b-ed32-398f-8bb32bd20c7f@redhat.com>
Well first of all you actually CCed AMDs graphics developers. So Alex
and I can't say much about CPU optimizations.
Additional to that a comment below.
Am 17.08.2016 um 19:20 schrieb Denys Vlasenko:
> Last year, a proposal was floated to avoid costly POPF.
> In particular, each spin_unlock_irqrestore() does it,
> a rather common operation.
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/21/290
> [RFC PATCH] x86/asm/irq: Don't use POPF but STI
>
> * Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
>> > Another different approach would be to formally state that
>> > pv_irq_ops.save_fl() needs to return all the flags, which would
>> > make local_irq_save() safe to use in this circumstance, but that
>> > makes a hotpath longer for the sake of a single boot time check.
>>
>> ...which reminds me:
>>
>> Why does native_restore_fl restore anything other than IF? A branch
>> and sti should be considerably faster than popf.
>
>
> Ingo agreed:
> ====
> Yes, this has come up in the past, something like the patch below?
>
> Totally untested and not signed off yet: because we'd first have to
> make sure (via irq flags debugging) that it's not used in reverse, to
> re-disable interrupts:
> local_irq_save(flags);
> local_irq_enable();
> ...
> local_irq_restore(flags); /* effective local_irq_disable() */
> I don't think we have many (any?) such patterns left, but it has to be
> checked first. If we have such cases then we'll have to use different
> primitives there.
> ====
>
> Linus replied:
> =====
> "popf" is fast for the "no changes to IF" case, and is a smaller
> instruction anyway.
> ====
>
>
> This basically shot down the proposal.
>
> But in my measurements POPF is not fast even in the case where restored
> flags are not changes at all:
>
> mov $200*1000*1000, %eax
> pushf
> pop %rbx
> .balign 64
> loop: push %rbx
> popf
> dec %eax
> jnz loop
>
> # perf stat -r20 ./popf_1g
> 4,929,012,093 cycles # 3.412
> GHz ( +- 0.02% )
> 835,721,371 instructions # 0.17 insn per
> cycle ( +- 0.02% )
> 1.446185359 seconds time
> elapsed ( +- 0.46% )
>
> If I replace POPF with a pop into an unused register, I get this:
You are comparing apples and bananas here.
The microcode path in the CPUs will probably through away the read if
you don't actually use the register value.
Regards,
Christian.
>
> loop: push %rbx
> pop %rcx
> dec %eax
> jnz loop
>
> 209,247,645 cycles # 3.209
> GHz ( +- 0.11% )
> 801,898,016 instructions # 3.83 insn per
> cycle ( +- 0.00% )
> 0.066210725 seconds time
> elapsed ( +- 0.59% )
>
>
> IOW, POPF takes at least 6 cycles.
>
>
> Linus does have a point that a "test+branch+STI" may end up not a
> clear win because of the branch.
>
> But the need to restore IF flag exists, it is necessary not only for
> Linux, but for any OS
> running on x86: they all have some sort of spinlock.
>
> The addition of a POPF instruction variant which looks only at IF bit
> and changes
> only that bit in EFLAGS may be a good idea, for all OSes.
>
> I propose that we ask Intel / AMD to do that.
>
> Maybe by the "ignored prefix" trick which was used when LZCNT insn was
> introduced
> as REPZ-prefixed BSR?
> Currently, REPZ POPF (f3 9d) insn does execute. Redefine this opcode as
> POPF_IF. Then the same kernel will work on old and new CPUs.
>
> CC'ing some @intel and @amd emails...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-17 20:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-17 17:20 RFC: Petition Intel/AMD to add POPF_IF insn Denys Vlasenko
2016-08-17 17:30 ` Christian König [this message]
2016-08-17 18:34 ` Denys Vlasenko
2016-08-17 17:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-08-17 18:41 ` Denys Vlasenko
[not found] ` <CA+55aFwmxwQBkyDjombS4cy1q=a_buhmDjDnaa8rdC8ZDaDYEA@mail.gmail.com>
2016-08-17 19:13 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-17 19:26 ` Denys Vlasenko
2016-08-17 19:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-08-17 19:35 ` Denys Vlasenko
2016-08-17 19:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-08-17 19:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-08-17 21:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-08-17 21:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-08-17 21:43 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-17 21:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-08-18 13:26 ` Denys Vlasenko
2016-08-18 17:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-08-18 17:47 ` Denys Vlasenko
2016-08-18 17:49 ` Denys Vlasenko
2016-08-19 10:54 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-08-31 11:12 ` Denys Vlasenko
2016-08-18 9:21 ` Denys Vlasenko
2016-08-18 12:18 ` Denys Vlasenko
2016-08-18 17:22 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-08-17 19:29 ` Linus Torvalds
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=64bd8281-aeb4-391b-90c6-3f5e44f0ce07@amd.com \
--to=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=alexander.deucher@amd.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dvlasenk@redhat.com \
--cc=johannes.berg@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=sara.sharon@intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vinod.koul@intel.com \
--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 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).