From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
luto@kernel.org, vincenzo.frascino@arm.com,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] powerpc/32: Switch VDSO to C implementation.
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2019 18:06:09 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191026230609.GY28442@gate.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1910262026340.10190@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 08:48:27PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Oct 2019, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Let's look at the code:
>
> __cvdso_gettimeofday(struct __kernel_old_timeval *tv, struct timezone *tz)
> {
> const struct vdso_data *vd = __arch_get_vdso_data();
>
> if (likely(tv != NULL)) {
> struct __kernel_timespec ts;
>
> if (do_hres(&vd[CS_HRES_COARSE], CLOCK_REALTIME, &ts))
> return gettimeofday_fallback(tv, tz);
>
> tv->tv_sec = ts.tv_sec;
> tv->tv_usec = (u32)ts.tv_nsec / NSEC_PER_USEC;
>
> IIRC PPC did some magic math tricks to avoid that. Could you just for the
> fun of it replace this division with
>
> (u32)ts.tv_nsec >> 10;
On this particular CPU (the 885, right?) a division by 1000 is just 9
cycles. On other CPUs it can be more, say 19 cycles like on the 750; not
cheap at all, but not hugely expensive either, comparatively.
(A 64/32->32 division is expensive on all 32-bit PowerPC: there is no
hardware help for it at all, so it's all done in software.)
Of course the compiler won't do a division by a constant with a division
instruction at all, so it's somewhat cheaper even, 5 or 6 cycles or so.
> One thing which might be worth to try as well is to mark all functions in
> that file as inline. The speedup by the do_hres() inlining was impressive
> on PPC.
The hand-optimised asm code will pretty likely win handsomely, whatever
you do. Especially on cores like the 885 (no branch prediction, single
issue, small caches, etc.: every instruction counts).
Is there any reason to replace this hand-optimised code? It was written
for exacty this reason? These functions are critical and should be as
fast as possible.
Segher
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-26 23:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-21 12:53 [RFC PATCH] powerpc/32: Switch VDSO to C implementation Christophe Leroy
2019-10-21 21:29 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-10-22 9:01 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-10-22 13:56 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-10-26 13:55 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-10-26 15:54 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-10-26 15:53 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-10-26 16:06 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-10-26 18:48 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-10-26 23:06 ` Segher Boessenkool [this message]
2019-10-27 9:21 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-10-27 19:07 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-12-20 18:24 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-09 14:05 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-01-09 15:21 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-01-10 22:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
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=20191026230609.GY28442@gate.crashing.org \
--to=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vincenzo.frascino@arm.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).