[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yo91omfDZtTgXhyn@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 13:42:35 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Waiman.Long@...com,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] locking/lockref: Use try_cmpxchg64 in CMPXCHG_LOOP
macro
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 10:14:59PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
> > On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 7:40 AM Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Use try_cmpxchg64 instead of cmpxchg64 in CMPXCHG_LOOP macro.
> >> x86 CMPXCHG instruction returns success in ZF flag, so this
> >> change saves a compare after cmpxchg (and related move instruction
> >> in front of cmpxchg). The main loop of lockref_get improves from:
> >
> > Ack on this one regardless of the 32-bit x86 question.
> >
> > HOWEVER.
> >
> > I'd like other architectures to pipe up too, because I think right now
> > x86 is the only one that implements that "arch_try_cmpxchg()" family
> > of operations natively, and I think the generic fallback for when it
> > is missing might be kind of nasty.
> >
> > Maybe it ends up generating ok code, but it's also possible that it
> > just didn't matter when it was only used in one place in the
> > scheduler.
>
> This patch seems to generate slightly *better* code on powerpc.
>
> I see one register-to-register move that gets shifted slightly later, so
> that it's skipped on the path that returns directly via the SUCCESS
> case.
FWIW, I see the same on arm64; a register-to-register move gets moved out of
the success path. That changes the register allocation, and resulting in one
fewer move, but otherwise the code generation is the same.
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists