[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180214120417.kwj2jzjvfxbu2vxw@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 13:04:17 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Yatsina, Marina" <marina.yatsina@...el.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@...gle.com>,
"Kreitzer, David L" <david.l.kreitzer@...el.com>,
"Grischenko, Andrei L" <andrei.l.grischenko@...el.com>,
"rnk@...gle.com" <rnk@...gle.com>,
LLVM Developers <llvm-dev@...ts.llvm.org>,
"ehsan@...illa.com" <ehsan@...illa.com>,
"Tayree, Coby" <coby.tayree@...el.com>,
Matthias Braun <matze@...unis.de>,
Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris@...il.com>,
James Y Knight <jyknight@...gle.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Stephen Hines <srhines@...gle.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: clang asm-goto support (Was Re: [PATCH v2] x86/retpoline: Add
clang support)
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 09:52:59AM +0000, Yatsina, Marina wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > When I started the original thread last year I was in favor of adding
> > "asm goto" and didn't understand why it wasn't done by that time. The
> > feedback I got is that this feature (optimizing tracepoints) is very
> > useful and that we do want it in llvm, but perhaps there's a cleaner
> > way of implementing than "asm goto". An alternative suggestion arose
> > as well.
>
> So it's far more than just tracepoints. We use it all over the kernel to
> do runtime branch patching.
>
> One example is avoiding the scheduler preemption callbacks if we know
> there are no users. This shaves a few % off a context switch
> micro-bench.
>
> But it is really _all_ over the place.
To quantify it: I just performed a test build of a Linux distro kernel config
(Fedora x86-64), and counted the number of callsites that use 'asm goto'
functionality with the v4.15 kernel (including drivers).
The results:
Linux distro | !CONFIG_TRACING
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
total # of functions : 191,567 | 184,443
total # of instructions : 14,251,355 | 13,526,112
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
total # of spin_lock*() calls : 25,246 | 25,177
total # of mutex_lock*() calls : 13,062 | 12,861
total # of kmalloc*() calls : 5,148 | 5,118
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
total # of 'asm goto' usage sites : 34,851 | 31,059
total # of 'asm goto' using functions : 18,209 | 16,089
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
percent of kernel functions using 'asm goto' : 9.5% | 8.7%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
( Note: I added the 'tracing disabled' column only to demonstrate how widely
'asm goto' is used beyond tracing - but since *all* major Linux
distributions have tracing enabled it's the first column that matters in
practice. )
So 'asm goto' is a major, major compiler feature the Linux kernel relies on:
in fact in the Linux kernel there's more 'asm goto' usage sites than there are
spin-lock critical sections!
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists