Re: [PATCH v4 0/10] x86/xsaves: Fix XSAVES known issues

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On 04/30/2016 12:53 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > We can still use the compacted area handling instructions, because presumably 
> > those are the fastest and are also the most optimized ones? But I wouldn't use 
> > them to do dynamic allocation: just allocate the maximum possible FPU save area at 
> > task creation time and never again worry about that detail.
> > 
> > Ok?
> 
> Sounds sane to me.
> 
> BTW, I hacked up your "fpu performance" to compare XSAVE vs. XSAVES:
> 
> > [    0.048347] x86/fpu: Cost of: XSAVE                       insn          :   127 cycles
> > [    0.049134] x86/fpu: Cost of: XSAVES                      insn          :   113 cycles
> > [    0.048492] x86/fpu: Cost of: XRSTOR                      insn          :   120 cycles
> > [    0.049267] x86/fpu: Cost of: XRSTORS                     insn          :   102 cycles
> 
> So I guess we can add that to the list of things that XSAVES is good for.

Absolutely!

> [...]  Granted, the real-world benefit is probably hard to measure because the 
> cache residency of the XSAVE buffer isn't as good when _actually_ context 
> switching, but this at least shows a small theoretical advantage for XSAVES.

Yeah, and anything that was measured for real is far from being theoretical. It's 
simply a best-case microbenchmark figure, but it's still a nice 10+ cycles 
improvement overall - which might become bigger in future CPU generations.

Thanks,

	Ingo