linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] Fix Unlikely(x) == y

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200802191720.49210.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:20:48 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Roel Kluin <12o3l@...cali.nl>, geoffrey.levand@...sony.com,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, cbe-oss-dev@...abs.org,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Fix Unlikely(x) == y

On Tuesday 19 February 2008 16:58, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 01:33:53PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > Note in particular the last predictors; assuming branch ending
> > > with goto, including call, causing early function return or
> > > returning negative constant are not taken. Just these alone
> > > are likely 95+% of the unlikelies in the kernel.
> >
> > Yes, gcc should be able to do pretty good heuristics, considering
> > the quite good numbers that cold CPU predictors can attain. However
> > for really performance critical code (or really "never" executed
> > code), then I think it is OK to have the hints and not have to rely
> > on gcc heuristics.
>
> in my experience, the real problem is that gcc does what *it* wants and not
> what *you* want. I've been annoyed a lot by the way it coded some loops
> that could really be blazingly fast, but which resulted in a ton of
> branches due to its predictors. And using unlikely() there was a real mess,
> because instead of just hinting the compiler with probabilities to write
> some linear code for the *most* common case, it ended up with awful
> branches everywhere with code sent far away and even duplicated for some
> branches.
>
> Sometimes, for performance critical paths, I would like gcc to be dumb and
> follow *my* code and not its hard-coded probabilities. For instance, in a
> tree traversal, you really know how you want to build your loop. And these
> days, it seems like the single method of getting it your way is doing asm,
> which obviously is not portable :-(

Probably all true.


> Maybe one thing we would need would be the ability to assign probabilities
> to each branch based on what we expect, so that gcc could build a better
> tree keeping most frequently used code tight.

I don't know if that would *directly* lead to gcc being smarter. I
think perhaps they probably don't benchmark on code bases that have
much explicit annotation (I'm sure they wouldn't seriously benchmark
any parts of Linux as part of daily development). I think the key is
to continue to use annotations _properly_, and eventually gcc should
go in the right direction if enough code uses it.

And if you have really good examples like it sounds like above, then
I guess that should be reported to gcc?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/