arm64: opportunity for (micro) optimisation in set_bit et al?

arm64: opportunity for (micro) optimisation in set_bit et al?

[Ian Campbell]

Hello,

I was "borrowing" the arm64 Linux bitops for use in Xen and Tim Deegan
wondered about the use of eor in:
       and     x3, x0, #63             // Get bit offset
       eor     x0, x0, x3              // Clear low bits
       mov     x2, #1
       add     x1, x1, x0, lsr #3      // Get word offset

That eor has a dependency on the previous and instruction which could be
avoided using a bic or a lsr #5 followed by lsl #2 instead of the lsr #3
on the add (this is what arm32 does).

The same goes for the test_and_blah variants.

Perhaps these sorts of hazards aren't such a big deal on arm64 or
perhaps eor has some advantage which we aren't aware of but I thought
I'd mention it...

Cheers,
Ian.

arm64: opportunity for (micro) optimisation in set_bit et al?

[Ian Campbell]

Hello,

I was "borrowing" the arm64 Linux bitops for use in Xen and Tim Deegan
wondered about the use of eor in:
       and     x3, x0, #63             // Get bit offset
       eor     x0, x0, x3              // Clear low bits
       mov     x2, #1
       add     x1, x1, x0, lsr #3      // Get word offset

That eor has a dependency on the previous and instruction which could be
avoided using a bic or a lsr #5 followed by lsl #2 instead of the lsr #3
on the add (this is what arm32 does).

The same goes for the test_and_blah variants.

Perhaps these sorts of hazards aren't such a big deal on arm64 or
perhaps eor has some advantage which we aren't aware of but I thought
I'd mention it...

Cheers,
Ian.

arm64: opportunity for (micro) optimisation in set_bit et al?

[Catalin Marinas]

Hi Ian,

On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 10:36:21AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> I was "borrowing" the arm64 Linux bitops for use in Xen and Tim Deegan
> wondered about the use of eor in:
>        and     x3, x0, #63             // Get bit offset
>        eor     x0, x0, x3              // Clear low bits
>        mov     x2, #1
>        add     x1, x1, x0, lsr #3      // Get word offset

BTW, the latest kernel uses W registers (32-bit here since the function
prototype has an 'int' and the compiler does not guarantee that the top
32-bit are 0.

> That eor has a dependency on the previous and instruction which could be
> avoided using a bic or a lsr #5 followed by lsl #2 instead of the lsr #3
> on the add (this is what arm32 does).

Any of these would do (I haven't tried, bic #imm is an alias for and).
I'll check with the hardware guys whether it makes any difference but it
is a harmless change anyway.

Thanks.

-- 
Catalin

Re: arm64: opportunity for (micro) optimisation in set_bit et al?

[Catalin Marinas]

Hi Ian,

On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 10:36:21AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> I was "borrowing" the arm64 Linux bitops for use in Xen and Tim Deegan
> wondered about the use of eor in:
>        and     x3, x0, #63             // Get bit offset
>        eor     x0, x0, x3              // Clear low bits
>        mov     x2, #1
>        add     x1, x1, x0, lsr #3      // Get word offset

BTW, the latest kernel uses W registers (32-bit here since the function
prototype has an 'int' and the compiler does not guarantee that the top
32-bit are 0.

> That eor has a dependency on the previous and instruction which could be
> avoided using a bic or a lsr #5 followed by lsl #2 instead of the lsr #3
> on the add (this is what arm32 does).

Any of these would do (I haven't tried, bic #imm is an alias for and).
I'll check with the hardware guys whether it makes any difference but it
is a harmless change anyway.

Thanks.

-- 
Catalin

arm64: opportunity for (micro) optimisation in set_bit et al?

[Ian Campbell]

On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 11:01 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Hi Ian,
> 
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 10:36:21AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > I was "borrowing" the arm64 Linux bitops for use in Xen and Tim Deegan
> > wondered about the use of eor in:
> >        and     x3, x0, #63             // Get bit offset
> >        eor     x0, x0, x3              // Clear low bits
> >        mov     x2, #1
> >        add     x1, x1, x0, lsr #3      // Get word offset
> 
> BTW, the latest kernel uses W registers (32-bit here since the function
> prototype has an 'int' and the compiler does not guarantee that the top
> 32-bit are 0.

Thanks, that was in the version I actually picked up (from v3.10-rc4) I
just grabbed the wrong thing when cut-n-pasting here.

> > That eor has a dependency on the previous and instruction which could be
> > avoided using a bic or a lsr #5 followed by lsl #2 instead of the lsr #3
> > on the add (this is what arm32 does).
> 
> Any of these would do (I haven't tried, bic #imm is an alias for and).
> I'll check with the hardware guys whether it makes any difference but it
> is a harmless change anyway.

ACK, thanks.

Ian.

Re: arm64: opportunity for (micro) optimisation in set_bit et al?

[Ian Campbell]

On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 11:01 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Hi Ian,
> 
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 10:36:21AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > I was "borrowing" the arm64 Linux bitops for use in Xen and Tim Deegan
> > wondered about the use of eor in:
> >        and     x3, x0, #63             // Get bit offset
> >        eor     x0, x0, x3              // Clear low bits
> >        mov     x2, #1
> >        add     x1, x1, x0, lsr #3      // Get word offset
> 
> BTW, the latest kernel uses W registers (32-bit here since the function
> prototype has an 'int' and the compiler does not guarantee that the top
> 32-bit are 0.

Thanks, that was in the version I actually picked up (from v3.10-rc4) I
just grabbed the wrong thing when cut-n-pasting here.

> > That eor has a dependency on the previous and instruction which could be
> > avoided using a bic or a lsr #5 followed by lsl #2 instead of the lsr #3
> > on the add (this is what arm32 does).
> 
> Any of these would do (I haven't tried, bic #imm is an alias for and).
> I'll check with the hardware guys whether it makes any difference but it
> is a harmless change anyway.

ACK, thanks.

Ian.