Re: [PATCH] perf annotate: Add more x86 mov instruction cases

[Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 1:12 AM David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
>
> From: Namhyung Kim
> > Sent: 09 September 2023 00:56
> >
> > Hi Ian,
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 11:24 PM Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 10:22 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Instructions with sign- and zero- extention like movsbl and movzwq were
> > > > not handled properly.  As it can check different size suffix (-b, -w, -l
> > > > or -q) we can omit that and add the common parts even though some
> > > > combinations are not possible.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >  tools/perf/arch/x86/annotate/instructions.c | 9 ++++++---
> > > >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/x86/annotate/instructions.c
> > b/tools/perf/arch/x86/annotate/instructions.c
> > > > index 5f4ac4fc7fcf..5cdf457f5cbe 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/perf/arch/x86/annotate/instructions.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/perf/arch/x86/annotate/instructions.c
> > > > @@ -74,12 +74,15 @@ static struct ins x86__instructions[] = {
> > > >         { .name = "movdqa",     .ops = &mov_ops,  },
> > > >         { .name = "movdqu",     .ops = &mov_ops,  },
> > > >         { .name = "movsd",      .ops = &mov_ops,  },
> > > > -       { .name = "movslq",     .ops = &mov_ops,  },
> > > >         { .name = "movss",      .ops = &mov_ops,  },
> > > > +       { .name = "movsb",      .ops = &mov_ops,  },
> > > > +       { .name = "movsw",      .ops = &mov_ops,  },
> > > > +       { .name = "movsl",      .ops = &mov_ops,  },
> > >
> > > In Intel's manual some of these names are "Move Data From String to
> > > String" operations, movsb and movsw in particular. These instructions
> > > can be used to make simple memcpy loops. Could it be the past omission
> > > was deliberate due to the different way the addressing works in the
> > > instructions?
> >
> > I don't know but in terms of instruction parsing, they are the same
> > "MOVE" with two operands.  I'm not aware of anything in perf with
> > the operands of these instructions.  So I guess it'd be fine to add
> > these instructions even if they have different underlying behaviors.
>
> I'm pretty sure that 'rep movs[bwlq]' (aka while (cx--) *di++ = *si++)
> is likely to be missing the memory argument parameters.
> There is also 'fun and games' with one variant - iirc 'rep movsd'
> what has been used for 64bit, but got hijacked by one of the SIMD sets.

It seems perf annotate don't process the rep prefix yet.
So I think there should be no functional change now.

Thanks,
Namhyung