Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-Jan-13 20:12 UTC
[PATCH v3 0/4] x86: faster mb()+documentation tweaks
mb() typically uses mfence on modern x86, but a micro-benchmark shows that it's 2 to 3 times slower than lock; addl that we use on older CPUs. So let's use the locked variant everywhere. While I was at it, I found some inconsistencies in comments in arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h The documentation fixes are included first - I verified that they do not change the generated code at all. They should be safe to apply directly. The last patch changes mb() to lock addl. I was unable to measure a speed difference on a macro benchmark, but I noted that even doing #define mb() barrier() seems to make no difference for most benchmarks (it causes hangs sometimes, of course). HPA asked that the last patch is deferred until we hear back from intel, which makes sense of course. So it needs HPA's ack. I hope I'm not splitting this up too much - the reason is I wanted to isolate the code changes (that people might want to test for performance) from comment changes approved by Linus, from (so far unreviewed) changes I came up with myself. Changes from v2: add patch adding cc clobber for addl tweak commit log for patch 2 use addl at SP-4 (as opposed to SP) to reduce data dependencies Michael S. Tsirkin (4): x86: add cc clobber for addl x86: drop a comment left over from X86_OOSTORE x86: tweak the comment about use of wmb for IO x86: drop mfence in favor of lock+addl arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h | 20 +++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) -- MST
addl clobbers flags (such as CF) but barrier.h didn't tell this to gcc. Historically, gcc doesn't need one on x86, and always considers flags clobbered. We are probably missing the cc clobber in a *lot* of places for this reason. But even if not necessary, it's probably a good thing to add for documentation, and in case gcc semantcs ever change. Reported-by: Borislav Petkov <bp at alien8.de> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> --- arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h | 9 ++++++--- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h index a584e1c..a65bdb1 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h @@ -15,9 +15,12 @@ * Some non-Intel clones support out of order store. wmb() ceases to be a * nop for these. */ -#define mb() alternative("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "mfence", X86_FEATURE_XMM2) -#define rmb() alternative("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "lfence", X86_FEATURE_XMM2) -#define wmb() alternative("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "sfence", X86_FEATURE_XMM) +#define mb() asm volatile(ALTERNATIVE("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "mfence", \ + X86_FEATURE_XMM2) ::: "memory", "cc") +#define rmb() asm volatile(ALTERNATIVE("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "lfence", \ + X86_FEATURE_XMM2) ::: "memory", "cc") +#define wmb() asm volatile(ALTERNATIVE("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "sfence", \ + X86_FEATURE_XMM2) ::: "memory", "cc") #else #define mb() asm volatile("mfence":::"memory") #define rmb() asm volatile("lfence":::"memory") -- MST
Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-Jan-13 20:12 UTC
[PATCH v3 2/4] x86: drop a comment left over from X86_OOSTORE
The comment about wmb being non-nop to deal with non-intel CPUs is a left over from before commit 09df7c4c8097 ("x86: Remove CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE"). It makes no sense now: in particular, wmb is not a nop even for regular intel CPUs because of weird use-cases e.g. dealing with WC memory. Drop this comment. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> --- arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h | 4 ---- 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h index a65bdb1..a291745 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h @@ -11,10 +11,6 @@ */ #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32 -/* - * Some non-Intel clones support out of order store. wmb() ceases to be a - * nop for these. - */ #define mb() asm volatile(ALTERNATIVE("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "mfence", \ X86_FEATURE_XMM2) ::: "memory", "cc") #define rmb() asm volatile(ALTERNATIVE("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "lfence", \ -- MST
Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-Jan-13 20:12 UTC
[PATCH v3 3/4] x86: tweak the comment about use of wmb for IO
On x86, we *do* still use the non-nop rmb/wmb for IO barriers, but even that is generally questionable. Leave them around as historial unless somebody can point to a case where they care about the performance, but tweak the comment so people don't think they are strictly required in all cases. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> --- arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h index a291745..bfb28ca 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ /* * Force strict CPU ordering. - * And yes, this is required on UP too when we're talking + * And yes, this might be required on UP too when we're talking * to devices. */ -- MST
Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-Jan-13 20:12 UTC
[PATCH v3 4/4] x86: drop mfence in favor of lock+addl
mfence appears to be way slower than a locked instruction - let's use lock+add unconditionally, as we always did on old 32-bit. Just poking at SP would be the most natural, but if we then read the value from SP, we get a false dependency which will slow us down. This was noted in this article: http://shipilev.net/blog/2014/on-the-fence-with-dependencies/ And is easy to reproduce by sticking a barrier in a small non-inline function. So let's use a negative offset - which avoids this problem since we build with the red zone disabled. Update rmb/wmb on 32 bit to use the negative offset, too, for consistency. Suggested-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto at amacapital.net> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> --- arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h | 13 ++++++------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h index bfb28ca..9a2d257 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h @@ -11,16 +11,15 @@ */ #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32 -#define mb() asm volatile(ALTERNATIVE("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "mfence", \ - X86_FEATURE_XMM2) ::: "memory", "cc") -#define rmb() asm volatile(ALTERNATIVE("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "lfence", \ +#define mb() asm volatile("lock; addl $0,-4(%%esp)" ::: "memory", "cc") +#define rmb() asm volatile(ALTERNATIVE("lock; addl $0,-4(%%esp)", "lfence", \ X86_FEATURE_XMM2) ::: "memory", "cc") -#define wmb() asm volatile(ALTERNATIVE("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "sfence", \ +#define wmb() asm volatile(ALTERNATIVE("lock; addl $0,-4(%%esp)", "sfence", \ X86_FEATURE_XMM2) ::: "memory", "cc") #else -#define mb() asm volatile("mfence":::"memory") -#define rmb() asm volatile("lfence":::"memory") -#define wmb() asm volatile("sfence" ::: "memory") +#define mb() asm volatile("lock; addl $0,-4(%%rsp)" ::: "memory", "cc") +#define rmb() asm volatile("lfence" ::: "memory") +#define wmb() asm volatile("sfence" ::: "memory") #endif #ifdef CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE -- MST
Borislav Petkov
2016-Jan-14 11:39 UTC
[PATCH v3 0/4] x86: faster mb()+documentation tweaks
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:12:22PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:> mb() typically uses mfence on modern x86, but a micro-benchmark shows that it's > 2 to 3 times slower than lock; addl that we use on older CPUs. > > So let's use the locked variant everywhere. > > While I was at it, I found some inconsistencies in comments in > arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h > > The documentation fixes are included first - I verified that > they do not change the generated code at all. They should be > safe to apply directly. > > The last patch changes mb() to lock addl. I was unable to > measure a speed difference on a macro benchmark, > but I noted that even doing > #define mb() barrier() > seems to make no difference for most benchmarks > (it causes hangs sometimes, of course). > > HPA asked that the last patch is deferred until we hear back from > intel, which makes sense of course. So it needs HPA's ack. > > I hope I'm not splitting this up too much - the reason is I wanted to isolate > the code changes (that people might want to test for performance) > from comment changes approved by Linus, from (so far unreviewed) changes > I came up with myself. > > Changes from v2: > add patch adding cc clobber for addl > tweak commit log for patch 2 > use addl at SP-4 (as opposed to SP) to reduce data dependencies > > Michael S. Tsirkin (4): > x86: add cc clobber for addl > x86: drop a comment left over from X86_OOSTORE > x86: tweak the comment about use of wmb for IOFirst three look ok to me regardless of what happens with 4. So applied. Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-Jan-26 08:23 UTC
[PATCH v3 0/4] x86: faster mb()+documentation tweaks
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:39:34PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:> > Michael S. Tsirkin (4): > > x86: add cc clobber for addl > > x86: drop a comment left over from X86_OOSTORE > > x86: tweak the comment about use of wmb for IO > > First three look ok to me regardless of what happens with 4. So applied.Sorry - in which tree are these applied? Thanks, -- MST
Seemingly Similar Threads
- [PATCH v3 0/4] x86: faster mb()+documentation tweaks
- [PATCH v3 0/4] x86: faster mb()+documentation tweaks
- [PATCH v2 0/3] x86: faster mb()+other barrier.h tweaks
- [PATCH v2 0/3] x86: faster mb()+other barrier.h tweaks
- [PATCH v2 0/3] x86: faster mb()+other barrier.h tweaks