[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200819195505.y3fxk72sotnrkczi@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 21:55:05 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: peterz@...radead.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] sched: Bring the PF_IO_WORKER and PF_WQ_WORKER bits
closer together
The bits PF_IO_WORKER and PF_WQ_WORKER are tested together in
sched_submit_work() which is considered to be a hot path.
If the two bits cross the 8 or 16 bit boundary then most architecture
require multiple load instructions in order to create the constant
value. Also, such a value can not be encoded within the compare opcode.
By moving the bit definition within the same block, the compiler can
create/use one immediate value.
For some reason gcc-10 on ARM64 requires both bits to be next to each
other in order to issue "tst reg, val; bne label". Otherwise the result
is "mov reg1, val; tst reg, reg1; bne label".
Move PF_VCPU out of the way so that PF_IO_WORKER can be next to
PF_WQ_WORKER.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
---
Could someone from the ARM64 camp please verify if this a gcc "bug" or
opcode/arch limitation? With PF_IO_WORKER as 1 (without the PF_VCPU
swap) I get for ARM:
| tst r2, #33 @ task_flags,
| beq .L998 @,
however ARM64 does here:
| mov w0, 33 // tmp117,
| tst w19, w0 // task_flags, tmp117
| bne .L453 //,
the extra mov operation. Moving PF_IO_WORKER next to PF_WQ_WORKER as
this patch gives me:
| tst w19, 48 // task_flags,
| bne .L453 //,
include/linux/sched.h | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 93ecd930efd31..2bf0af19a62a4 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -1489,9 +1489,10 @@ extern struct pid *cad_pid;
/*
* Per process flags
*/
+#define PF_VCPU 0x00000001 /* I'm a virtual CPU */
#define PF_IDLE 0x00000002 /* I am an IDLE thread */
#define PF_EXITING 0x00000004 /* Getting shut down */
-#define PF_VCPU 0x00000010 /* I'm a virtual CPU */
+#define PF_IO_WORKER 0x00000010 /* Task is an IO worker */
#define PF_WQ_WORKER 0x00000020 /* I'm a workqueue worker */
#define PF_FORKNOEXEC 0x00000040 /* Forked but didn't exec */
#define PF_MCE_PROCESS 0x00000080 /* Process policy on mce errors */
@@ -1515,7 +1516,6 @@ extern struct pid *cad_pid;
#define PF_NO_SETAFFINITY 0x04000000 /* Userland is not allowed to meddle with cpus_mask */
#define PF_MCE_EARLY 0x08000000 /* Early kill for mce process policy */
#define PF_MEMALLOC_NOCMA 0x10000000 /* All allocation request will have _GFP_MOVABLE cleared */
-#define PF_IO_WORKER 0x20000000 /* Task is an IO worker */
#define PF_FREEZER_SKIP 0x40000000 /* Freezer should not count it as freezable */
#define PF_SUSPEND_TASK 0x80000000 /* This thread called freeze_processes() and should not be frozen */
--
2.28.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists