mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Optimize TIF checking in __switch_to_xtra.
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 17:15:46 +0100 (CET)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1612091431280.3794@nanos> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161206230445.20594-1-khuey@kylehuey.com>

On Tue, 6 Dec 2016, Kyle Huey wrote:
> I propose the following patch, which results in GCC generating this code:
> 
>     mov    (%rsi),%rax
>     xor    (%rdi),%rax
>     mov    %rdi,%rbx
>     mov    %rsi,%r12
>     test   $0x2000000,%eax
>     mov    %rax,%rdx
>     jne    3f
> 1:  test   $0x10000,%edx
>     je     2f
>     /* do some more work */
> 2:  /* the rest of the function */
>     ret
> 3:  /* do work */
>     mov    (%r12),%rdx
>     xor    (%rbx),%rdx
>     jmp    1b
> 
> When we are not doing the work controlled by these flags this is significantly
> better. We only have to load the flags from memory once, and we do a single
> XOR that we can test multiple times instead of repeatedly isolating bits.

You rely on the compiler doing the right thing. And it's non obvious from
the code that this gets optimized as above.

> When we are doing the work controlled by these flags, this is slightly better.
> We still get to avoid isolating particular bits, and we simply recompute the
> XOR before jumping back if the register was clobbered by the work. Finally,
> in either event, additional TIF checks of this form simply become another test
> and branch, reducing the overhead of the new check I would like to add.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kyle Huey <khuey@kylehuey.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/process.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> index 0888a879120f..bbe85c377345 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> @@ -187,37 +187,45 @@ int set_tsc_mode(unsigned int val)
>  	else if (val == PR_TSC_ENABLE)
>  		enable_TSC();
>  	else
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static inline int test_tsk_threads_flag_differ(struct task_struct *prev,
> +					       struct task_struct *next,
> +					       unsigned long mask)
> +{
> +	unsigned long diff;
> +
> +	diff = task_thread_info(prev)->flags ^ task_thread_info(next)->flags;
> +	return (diff & mask) != 0;
> +}
> +
>  void __switch_to_xtra(struct task_struct *prev_p, struct task_struct *next_p,
>  		      struct tss_struct *tss)
>  {
>  	struct thread_struct *prev, *next;
>  
>  	prev = &prev_p->thread;
>  	next = &next_p->thread;
>  
> -	if (test_tsk_thread_flag(prev_p, TIF_BLOCKSTEP) ^
> -	    test_tsk_thread_flag(next_p, TIF_BLOCKSTEP)) {
> +	if (test_tsk_threads_flag_differ(prev_p, next_p, _TIF_BLOCKSTEP)) {
>  		unsigned long debugctl = get_debugctlmsr();
>  
>  		debugctl &= ~DEBUGCTLMSR_BTF;
>  		if (test_tsk_thread_flag(next_p, TIF_BLOCKSTEP))
>  			debugctl |= DEBUGCTLMSR_BTF;
>  
>  		update_debugctlmsr(debugctl);
>  	}
>  
> -	if (test_tsk_thread_flag(prev_p, TIF_NOTSC) ^
> -	    test_tsk_thread_flag(next_p, TIF_NOTSC)) {
> +	if (test_tsk_threads_flag_differ(prev_p, next_p, _TIF_NOTSC)) {
>  		/* prev and next are different */
>  		if (test_tsk_thread_flag(next_p, TIF_NOTSC))
>  			hard_disable_TSC();
>  		else
>  			hard_enable_TSC();
>  	}

To make it clear, you can do:

	unsigned long tifp, tifn, tifd;

	tifp = task_thread_info(p_prev)->flags;
	tifn = task_thread_info(p_next)->flags;
	tifd = tifp ^ tifn;

and then have:

	if (tifd & _TIF_BLOCKSTEP) {
		...
	}

	if (tifd & _TIF_NOTSC) {
		...
	}

  	if (tifn & _TIF_IO_BITMAP)) {
		...
	}

And there is further room to optimize the BLOCKSTEP and NOTSC parts.

Thanks,

	tglx

  reply	other threads:[~2016-12-09 16:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-12-06 23:04 Kyle Huey
2016-12-09 16:15 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2016-12-09 16:25   ` Thomas Gleixner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.20.1612091431280.3794@nanos \
    --to=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=me@kylehuey.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=robert@ocallahan.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®