[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <367bc727-3f26-4e78-8e58-af959760b3fc@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 08:18:19 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/smp: Use atomic_try_cmpxchg() to micro-optimize
native_stop_other_cpus()
On 11/14/23 08:43, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Use atomic_try_cmpxchg() instead of atomic_cmpxchg(*ptr, old, new) == old
> in native_stop_other_cpus(). On x86 the CMPXCHG instruction returns success
> in the ZF flag, so this change saves a compare after CMPXCHG. Together
> with a small code reorder, the generated asm code improves from:
>
> 74: 8b 05 00 00 00 00 mov 0x0(%rip),%eax
> 7a: 41 54 push %r12
> 7c: 55 push %rbp
> 7d: 65 8b 2d 00 00 00 00 mov %gs:0x0(%rip),%ebp
> 84: 53 push %rbx
> 85: 85 c0 test %eax,%eax
> 87: 75 71 jne fa <native_stop_other_cpus+0x8a>
> 89: b8 ff ff ff ff mov $0xffffffff,%eax
> 8e: f0 0f b1 2d 00 00 00 lock cmpxchg %ebp,0x0(%rip)
> 95: 00
> 96: 83 f8 ff cmp $0xffffffff,%eax
> 99: 75 5f jne fa <native_stop_other_cpus+0x8a>
>
> to:
>
> 74: 8b 05 00 00 00 00 mov 0x0(%rip),%eax
> 7a: 85 c0 test %eax,%eax
> 7c: 0f 85 84 00 00 00 jne 106 <native_stop_other_cpus+0x96>
> 82: 41 54 push %r12
> 84: b8 ff ff ff ff mov $0xffffffff,%eax
> 89: 55 push %rbp
> 8a: 53 push %rbx
> 8b: 65 8b 1d 00 00 00 00 mov %gs:0x0(%rip),%ebx
> 92: f0 0f b1 1d 00 00 00 lock cmpxchg %ebx,0x0(%rip)
> 99: 00
> 9a: 75 5e jne fa <native_stop_other_cpus+0x8a>
>
> Please note early exit and lack of CMP after CMPXCHG.
Uros, I really do appreciate that you are trying to optimize these
paths. But the thing we have to balance is the _need_ for optimization
with the chance that this will break something.
This is about as much of a slow path as we have in the kernel. It's
only used at shutdown, right? That means this is one of the places in
the kernel that least needs optimization. It can only possibly get run
once per boot.
So, the benefit is that it might make this code a few cycles faster. In
practice, it might not even be measurably faster.
On the other hand, this is relatively untested and also makes the C code
more complicated.
Is there some other side benefit that I'm missing here? Applying this
patch doesn't seem to have a great risk/reward ratio.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists