From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Horst Hartmann <horsth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/3] spinlock: allow inlined spinlocks
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 11:43:03 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0908161123250.3162@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090816180631.GA23448@elte.hu>
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> What's the current situation on s390, precisely which of the 28 lock
> functions are a win to be inlined and which ones are a loss? Do you
> have a list/table perhaps?
Let's look at x86 instead.
The one I can _guarantee_ is worth inlining is "spin_unlock()", since it
just generates a single "incb %m" or whatever. No loops, no conditionals,
no nuthing. It's not even a locked instruction. Right now we literally
generate this function for it:
0xffffffff81420d74 <_spin_unlock+0>: push %rbp
0xffffffff81420d75 <_spin_unlock+1>: mov %rsp,%rbp
0xffffffff81420d78 <_spin_unlock+4>: incb (%rdi)
0xffffffff81420d7a <_spin_unlock+6>: leaveq
0xffffffff81420d7b <_spin_unlock+7>: retq
iow, the actual "bulk" of that function is a single two-byte instruction.
And for that we generate a whole 5-byte "call" instruction, along with all
the costs of fixed register scheduling and stupid spilling etc.
read_unlock and write_unlock are similar, and are
lock incl (%rdi) // 3 bytes
and
lock addl $0x1000000,(%rdi) // 7 bytes
respectively. At 7 bytes, write_unlock() is still likely to be smaller
inlined (because you avoid the register games).
Other cases on x86 that would be smaller in-lined:
- _spin_unlock_irq: 3 bytes
incb (%rdi)
sti
- _spin_unlock_irqrestore: 4 bytes
incb (%rdi)
push %rsi
popfq
- _read_unlock_irq/_read_unlock_irqrestore (4 and 5 bytes respectively):
lock incl (%rdi)
sti / push+popfq
but not, for example, any of the locking functions, nor any of the "_bh"
versions (because local_bh_enable ends up pretty complicated, unlike
local_bh_disable). Nor even perhaps
- _write_unlock_irqrestore: (9 bytes)
lock addl $0x1000000,(%rdi)
push %rsi
popfq
which is starting to get to the point where a call _may_ be smaller
(largely due to that big constant).
And '_spin_lock()' is already too big to inline:
mov $0x100,%eax
lock xadd %ax,(%rdi)
cmp %ah,%al
je 2f
pause
mov (%rdi),%al
je 1b
which is 20 bytes or so, and that's the simplest of the locking cases. So
you really do have a mix of "want to inline" and "do not want to inline".
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-16 18:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-14 12:58 [patch 0/3] Allow inlined spinlocks again V4 Heiko Carstens
2009-08-14 12:58 ` [patch 1/3] spinlock: move spinlock function bodies to header file Heiko Carstens
2009-08-14 12:58 ` [patch 2/3] spinlock: allow inlined spinlocks Heiko Carstens
2009-08-16 17:57 ` Heiko Carstens
2009-08-16 18:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-16 18:43 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2009-08-16 20:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-16 21:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-08-16 21:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-16 18:44 ` Heiko Carstens
2009-08-16 20:48 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-16 21:33 ` Heiko Carstens
2009-08-16 21:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-16 18:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-08-17 15:46 ` Heiko Carstens
2009-08-14 12:58 ` [patch 3/3] spinlock: inline code for all locking variants on s390 Heiko Carstens
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-08-12 18:39 [patch 0/3] Allow inlined spinlocks again V3 Heiko Carstens
2009-08-12 18:39 ` [patch 2/3] spinlock: allow inlined spinlocks Heiko Carstens
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.LFD.2.01.0908161123250.3162@localhost.localdomain \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=horsth@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).