* Re: [PATCH] arm64:align function __arch_clear_user [not found] <58fecb22-f932-cb6e-d996-ca75fe26a75d@huawei.com> @ 2021-04-14 10:41 ` Catalin Marinas 2021-04-19 2:05 ` Kai Shen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2021-04-14 10:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kai Shen; +Cc: will, linux-arm-kernel, LKML, xuwei5, hewenliang4, wuxu.wu On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 05:25:43PM +0800, Kai Shen wrote: > Performance decreases happen in __arch_clear_user when this > function is not correctly aligned on HISI-HIP08 arm64 SOC which > fetches 32 bytes (8 instructions) from icache with a 32-bytes > aligned end address. As a result, if the hot loop is not 32-bytes > aligned, it may take more icache fetches which leads to decrease > in performance. > Dump of assembler code for function __arch_clear_user: > 0xffff0000809e3f10 : nop > 0xffff0000809e3f14 : mov x2, x1 > 0xffff0000809e3f18 : subs x1, x1, #0x8 > 0xffff0000809e3f1c : b.mi 0xffff0000809e3f30 <__arch_clear_user+3 > ----- 0xffff0000809e3f20 : str xzr, [x0],#8 > hot 0xffff0000809e3f24 : nop > loop 0xffff0000809e3f28 : subs x1, x1, #0x8 > ----- 0xffff0000809e3f2c : b.pl 0xffff0000809e3f20 <__arch_clear_user+1 > The hot loop above takes one icache fetch as the code is in one > 32-bytes aligned area and the loop takes one more icache fetch > when it is not aligned like below. > 0xffff0000809e4178 : str xzr, [x0],#8 > 0xffff0000809e417c : nop > 0xffff0000809e4180 : subs x1, x1, #0x8 > 0xffff0000809e4184 : b.pl 0xffff0000809e4178 <__arch_clear_user+ > Data collected by perf: > aligned not aligned > instructions 57733790 57739065 > L1-dcache-store 14938070 13718242 > L1-dcache-store-misses 349280 349869 > L1-icache-loads 15380895 28500665 > As we can see, L1-icache-loads almost double when the loop is not > aligned. > This problem is found in linux 4.19 on HISI-HIP08 arm64 SOC. > Not sure what the case is on other arm64 SOC, but it should do > no harm. > Signed-off-by: Kai Shen <shenkai8@huawei.com> Do you have a real world workload that's affected by this function? I'm against adding alignments and nops for specific hardware implementations. What about lots of other loops that the compiler may generate or that we wrote in asm? -- Catalin _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64:align function __arch_clear_user 2021-04-14 10:41 ` [PATCH] arm64:align function __arch_clear_user Catalin Marinas @ 2021-04-19 2:05 ` Kai Shen 2021-04-23 15:37 ` Catalin Marinas 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Kai Shen @ 2021-04-19 2:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Catalin Marinas Cc: will, linux-arm-kernel, LKML, xuwei5, hewenliang4, wuxu.wu On 2021/4/14 18:41, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 05:25:43PM +0800, Kai Shen wrote: >> Performance decreases happen in __arch_clear_user when this >> function is not correctly aligned on HISI-HIP08 arm64 SOC which >> fetches 32 bytes (8 instructions) from icache with a 32-bytes >> aligned end address. As a result, if the hot loop is not 32-bytes >> aligned, it may take more icache fetches which leads to decrease >> in performance. >> Dump of assembler code for function __arch_clear_user: >> 0xffff0000809e3f10 : nop >> 0xffff0000809e3f14 : mov x2, x1 >> 0xffff0000809e3f18 : subs x1, x1, #0x8 >> 0xffff0000809e3f1c : b.mi 0xffff0000809e3f30 <__arch_clear_user+3 >> ----- 0xffff0000809e3f20 : str xzr, [x0],#8 >> hot 0xffff0000809e3f24 : nop >> loop 0xffff0000809e3f28 : subs x1, x1, #0x8 >> ----- 0xffff0000809e3f2c : b.pl 0xffff0000809e3f20 <__arch_clear_user+1 >> The hot loop above takes one icache fetch as the code is in one >> 32-bytes aligned area and the loop takes one more icache fetch >> when it is not aligned like below. >> 0xffff0000809e4178 : str xzr, [x0],#8 >> 0xffff0000809e417c : nop >> 0xffff0000809e4180 : subs x1, x1, #0x8 >> 0xffff0000809e4184 : b.pl 0xffff0000809e4178 <__arch_clear_user+ >> Data collected by perf: >> aligned not aligned >> instructions 57733790 57739065 >> L1-dcache-store 14938070 13718242 >> L1-dcache-store-misses 349280 349869 >> L1-icache-loads 15380895 28500665 >> As we can see, L1-icache-loads almost double when the loop is not >> aligned. >> This problem is found in linux 4.19 on HISI-HIP08 arm64 SOC. >> Not sure what the case is on other arm64 SOC, but it should do >> no harm. >> Signed-off-by: Kai Shen <shenkai8@huawei.com> > > Do you have a real world workload that's affected by this function? > > I'm against adding alignments and nops for specific hardware > implementations. What about lots of other loops that the compiler may > generate or that we wrote in asm? > > The benchmark we used which suffer performance decrease: https://github.com/redhat-performance/libMicro pread $OPTS -N "pread_z1k" -s 1k -I 300 -f /dev/zero pread $OPTS -N "pread_z10k" -s 10k -I 1000 -f /dev/zero pread $OPTS -N "pread_z100k" -s 100k -I 2000 -f /dev/zero As far as I know, GCC has option falign-loops to align loop, as for code written in asm, maybe we should take care of them on our own. From my point of view, the loop in __arch_clear_user is really hot when being used, it is reasonable to align it. Or maybe adding a errata CONFIG for HNS_HIP08 to fix this? Previous message have some problems with formats of kernel mail list So I resend this message. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64:align function __arch_clear_user 2021-04-19 2:05 ` Kai Shen @ 2021-04-23 15:37 ` Catalin Marinas 2021-04-25 2:07 ` Kai Shen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2021-04-23 15:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kai Shen; +Cc: will, linux-arm-kernel, LKML, xuwei5, hewenliang4, wuxu.wu On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:05:16AM +0800, Kai Shen wrote: > On 2021/4/14 18:41, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 05:25:43PM +0800, Kai Shen wrote: > > > Performance decreases happen in __arch_clear_user when this > > > function is not correctly aligned on HISI-HIP08 arm64 SOC which > > > fetches 32 bytes (8 instructions) from icache with a 32-bytes > > > aligned end address. As a result, if the hot loop is not 32-bytes > > > aligned, it may take more icache fetches which leads to decrease > > > in performance. > > > Dump of assembler code for function __arch_clear_user: > > > 0xffff0000809e3f10 : nop > > > 0xffff0000809e3f14 : mov x2, x1 > > > 0xffff0000809e3f18 : subs x1, x1, #0x8 > > > 0xffff0000809e3f1c : b.mi 0xffff0000809e3f30 <__arch_clear_user+3 > > > ----- 0xffff0000809e3f20 : str xzr, [x0],#8 > > > hot 0xffff0000809e3f24 : nop > > > loop 0xffff0000809e3f28 : subs x1, x1, #0x8 > > > ----- 0xffff0000809e3f2c : b.pl 0xffff0000809e3f20 <__arch_clear_user+1 > > > The hot loop above takes one icache fetch as the code is in one > > > 32-bytes aligned area and the loop takes one more icache fetch > > > when it is not aligned like below. > > > 0xffff0000809e4178 : str xzr, [x0],#8 > > > 0xffff0000809e417c : nop > > > 0xffff0000809e4180 : subs x1, x1, #0x8 > > > 0xffff0000809e4184 : b.pl 0xffff0000809e4178 <__arch_clear_user+ > > > Data collected by perf: > > > aligned not aligned > > > instructions 57733790 57739065 > > > L1-dcache-store 14938070 13718242 > > > L1-dcache-store-misses 349280 349869 > > > L1-icache-loads 15380895 28500665 > > > As we can see, L1-icache-loads almost double when the loop is not > > > aligned. > > > This problem is found in linux 4.19 on HISI-HIP08 arm64 SOC. > > > Not sure what the case is on other arm64 SOC, but it should do > > > no harm. > > > Signed-off-by: Kai Shen <shenkai8@huawei.com> > > > > Do you have a real world workload that's affected by this function? > > > > I'm against adding alignments and nops for specific hardware > > implementations. What about lots of other loops that the compiler may > > generate or that we wrote in asm? > > The benchmark we used which suffer performance decrease: > https://github.com/redhat-performance/libMicro > pread $OPTS -N "pread_z1k" -s 1k -I 300 -f /dev/zero > pread $OPTS -N "pread_z10k" -s 10k -I 1000 -f /dev/zero > pread $OPTS -N "pread_z100k" -s 100k -I 2000 -f /dev/zero Is there any real world use-case that would benefit from this optimisation? Reading /dev/zero in a loop hardly counts as a practical workload. -- Catalin _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64:align function __arch_clear_user 2021-04-23 15:37 ` Catalin Marinas @ 2021-04-25 2:07 ` Kai Shen 2021-04-27 16:50 ` Robin Murphy 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Kai Shen @ 2021-04-25 2:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Catalin Marinas Cc: will, linux-arm-kernel, LKML, xuwei5, hewenliang4, wuxu.wu On 2021/4/23 23:37, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:05:16AM +0800, Kai Shen wrote: >> On 2021/4/14 18:41, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 05:25:43PM +0800, Kai Shen wrote: >>>> Performance decreases happen in __arch_clear_user when this >>>> function is not correctly aligned on HISI-HIP08 arm64 SOC which >>>> fetches 32 bytes (8 instructions) from icache with a 32-bytes >>>> aligned end address. As a result, if the hot loop is not 32-bytes >>>> aligned, it may take more icache fetches which leads to decrease >>>> in performance. >>>> Dump of assembler code for function __arch_clear_user: >>>> 0xffff0000809e3f10 : nop >>>> 0xffff0000809e3f14 : mov x2, x1 >>>> 0xffff0000809e3f18 : subs x1, x1, #0x8 >>>> 0xffff0000809e3f1c : b.mi 0xffff0000809e3f30 <__arch_clear_user+3 >>>> ----- 0xffff0000809e3f20 : str xzr, [x0],#8 >>>> hot 0xffff0000809e3f24 : nop >>>> loop 0xffff0000809e3f28 : subs x1, x1, #0x8 >>>> ----- 0xffff0000809e3f2c : b.pl 0xffff0000809e3f20 <__arch_clear_user+1 >>>> The hot loop above takes one icache fetch as the code is in one >>>> 32-bytes aligned area and the loop takes one more icache fetch >>>> when it is not aligned like below. >>>> 0xffff0000809e4178 : str xzr, [x0],#8 >>>> 0xffff0000809e417c : nop >>>> 0xffff0000809e4180 : subs x1, x1, #0x8 >>>> 0xffff0000809e4184 : b.pl 0xffff0000809e4178 <__arch_clear_user+ >>>> Data collected by perf: >>>> aligned not aligned >>>> instructions 57733790 57739065 >>>> L1-dcache-store 14938070 13718242 >>>> L1-dcache-store-misses 349280 349869 >>>> L1-icache-loads 15380895 28500665 >>>> As we can see, L1-icache-loads almost double when the loop is not >>>> aligned. >>>> This problem is found in linux 4.19 on HISI-HIP08 arm64 SOC. >>>> Not sure what the case is on other arm64 SOC, but it should do >>>> no harm. >>>> Signed-off-by: Kai Shen <shenkai8@huawei.com> >>> >>> Do you have a real world workload that's affected by this function? >>> >>> I'm against adding alignments and nops for specific hardware >>> implementations. What about lots of other loops that the compiler may >>> generate or that we wrote in asm? >> >> The benchmark we used which suffer performance decrease: >> https://github.com/redhat-performance/libMicro >> pread $OPTS -N "pread_z1k" -s 1k -I 300 -f /dev/zero >> pread $OPTS -N "pread_z10k" -s 10k -I 1000 -f /dev/zero >> pread $OPTS -N "pread_z100k" -s 100k -I 2000 -f /dev/zero > > Is there any real world use-case that would benefit from this > optimisation? Reading /dev/zero in a loop hardly counts as a practical > workload. > Operations like "dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda1" ? _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64:align function __arch_clear_user 2021-04-25 2:07 ` Kai Shen @ 2021-04-27 16:50 ` Robin Murphy 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Robin Murphy @ 2021-04-27 16:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kai Shen, Catalin Marinas Cc: will, linux-arm-kernel, LKML, xuwei5, hewenliang4, wuxu.wu On 2021-04-25 03:07, Kai Shen wrote: > On 2021/4/23 23:37, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:05:16AM +0800, Kai Shen wrote: >>> On 2021/4/14 18:41, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 05:25:43PM +0800, Kai Shen wrote: >>>>> Performance decreases happen in __arch_clear_user when this >>>>> function is not correctly aligned on HISI-HIP08 arm64 SOC which >>>>> fetches 32 bytes (8 instructions) from icache with a 32-bytes >>>>> aligned end address. As a result, if the hot loop is not 32-bytes >>>>> aligned, it may take more icache fetches which leads to decrease >>>>> in performance. >>>>> Dump of assembler code for function __arch_clear_user: >>>>> 0xffff0000809e3f10 : nop >>>>> 0xffff0000809e3f14 : mov x2, x1 >>>>> 0xffff0000809e3f18 : subs x1, x1, #0x8 >>>>> 0xffff0000809e3f1c : b.mi 0xffff0000809e3f30 >>>>> <__arch_clear_user+3 >>>>> ----- 0xffff0000809e3f20 : str xzr, [x0],#8 >>>>> hot 0xffff0000809e3f24 : nop >>>>> loop 0xffff0000809e3f28 : subs x1, x1, #0x8 >>>>> ----- 0xffff0000809e3f2c : b.pl 0xffff0000809e3f20 >>>>> <__arch_clear_user+1 >>>>> The hot loop above takes one icache fetch as the code is in one >>>>> 32-bytes aligned area and the loop takes one more icache fetch >>>>> when it is not aligned like below. >>>>> 0xffff0000809e4178 : str xzr, [x0],#8 >>>>> 0xffff0000809e417c : nop >>>>> 0xffff0000809e4180 : subs x1, x1, #0x8 >>>>> 0xffff0000809e4184 : b.pl 0xffff0000809e4178 >>>>> <__arch_clear_user+ >>>>> Data collected by perf: >>>>> aligned not aligned >>>>> instructions 57733790 57739065 >>>>> L1-dcache-store 14938070 13718242 >>>>> L1-dcache-store-misses 349280 349869 >>>>> L1-icache-loads 15380895 28500665 >>>>> As we can see, L1-icache-loads almost double when the loop is not >>>>> aligned. Sure, if the function spans two cache lines, and I$ pressure is so high that it gets evicted between each call, then indeed one would expect about twice as many fetches in total compared to if the function fits in a single line. However, that's not necessarily indicative of visible performance - if the predictors and prefetchers can do their jobs well enough there could still be little to no impact on actual execution latency. If you want to use perf to try to justify this, at least drill down into more specific events to show that you're really stalling on I$ misses. The most convincing argument, though, would be a measured difference in actual user-memory-zeroing bandwidth - the fact that you haven't shared that, even for your synthetic test, makes me suspect that it's probably not as significant and exciting as a supposed "2x" figure... ;) >>>>> This problem is found in linux 4.19 on HISI-HIP08 arm64 SOC. >>>>> Not sure what the case is on other arm64 SOC, but it should do >>>>> no harm. >>>>> Signed-off-by: Kai Shen <shenkai8@huawei.com> >>>> >>>> Do you have a real world workload that's affected by this function? >>>> >>>> I'm against adding alignments and nops for specific hardware >>>> implementations. What about lots of other loops that the compiler may >>>> generate or that we wrote in asm? >>> >>> The benchmark we used which suffer performance decrease: >>> https://github.com/redhat-performance/libMicro >>> pread $OPTS -N "pread_z1k" -s 1k -I 300 -f /dev/zero >>> pread $OPTS -N "pread_z10k" -s 10k -I 1000 -f /dev/zero >>> pread $OPTS -N "pread_z100k" -s 100k -I 2000 -f /dev/zero >> >> Is there any real world use-case that would benefit from this >> optimisation? Reading /dev/zero in a loop hardly counts as a practical >> workload. >> > Operations like "dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda1" ? Surely the write() side of that operation is still going to dominate either way? What kind of device would sda be for the whole operation to be significantly bottlenecked on *instruction fetch bandwidth* in read()!? FWIW I'm currently playing about with some changes to this code anyway - I'll make sure to check whether function alignment has any noticeable impact on the microarchitectures I have to hand. Robin. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-04-27 16:52 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <58fecb22-f932-cb6e-d996-ca75fe26a75d@huawei.com>
2021-04-14 10:41 ` [PATCH] arm64:align function __arch_clear_user Catalin Marinas
2021-04-19 2:05 ` Kai Shen
2021-04-23 15:37 ` Catalin Marinas
2021-04-25 2:07 ` Kai Shen
2021-04-27 16:50 ` Robin Murphy
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).