public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	"Xin, Xiaohui" <xiaohui.xin@intel.com>,
	"Li, Xin" <xin.li@intel.com>,
	"Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
	rostedt <rostedt@rostedt.homelinux.com>
Subject: Re: Performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native identified
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 10:25:06 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1242289506.6642.901.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A0B6F9C.4060405@zytor.com>

On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 18:10 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > 
> > So, what's the fix?
> > 
> > Paravirt patching turns all the pvops calls into direct calls, so
> > _spin_lock etc do end up having direct calls.  For example, the compiler
> > generated code for paravirtualized _spin_lock is:
> > 
> > <_spin_lock+0>:		mov    %gs:0xb4c8,%rax
> > <_spin_lock+9>:		incl   0xffffffffffffe044(%rax)
> > <_spin_lock+15>:	callq  *0xffffffff805a5b30
> > <_spin_lock+22>:	retq
> > 
> > The indirect call will get patched to:
> > <_spin_lock+0>:		mov    %gs:0xb4c8,%rax
> > <_spin_lock+9>:		incl   0xffffffffffffe044(%rax)
> > <_spin_lock+15>:	callq <__ticket_spin_lock>
> > <_spin_lock+20>:	nop; nop		/* or whatever 2-byte nop */
> > <_spin_lock+22>:	retq
> > 
> > One possibility is to inline _spin_lock, etc, when building an
> > optimised kernel (ie, when there's no spinlock/preempt
> > instrumentation/debugging enabled).  That will remove the outer
> > call/return pair, returning the instruction stream to a single
> > call/return, which will presumably execute the same as the non-pvops
> > case.  The downsides arel 1) it will replicate the
> > preempt_disable/enable code at eack lock/unlock callsite; this code is
> > fairly small, but not nothing; and 2) the spinlock definitions are
> > already a very heavily tangled mass of #ifdefs and other preprocessor
> > magic, and making any changes will be non-trivial.
> > 
> 
> The other obvious option, it would seem to me, would be to eliminate the
> *inner* call/return pair, i.e. merging the _spin_lock setup code in with
> the internals of each available implementation (in the case above,
> __ticket_spin_lock).  This is effectively what happens on native.  The
> one problem with that is that every callsite now becomes a patching target.
> 
> That brings me to a somewhat half-arsed thought I have been walking
> around with for a while.
> 
> Consider a paravirt -- or for that matter any other call which is
> runtime-static; this isn't just limited to paravirt -- function which
> looks to the C compiler just like any other external function -- no
> indirection.  We can point it by default to a function which is really
> just an indirect jump to the appropriate handler, that handles the
> prepatching case.  However, a linktime pass over vmlinux.o can find all
> the points where this function is called, and turn it into a list of
> patch sites(*).  The advantages are:
> 
> 1. [minor] no additional nop padding due to indirect function calls.
> 2. [major] no need for a ton of wrapper macros manifest in the code.
> 
> paravirt_ops that turn into pure inline code in the native case is
> obviously another ball of wax entirely; there inline assembly wrappers
> are simply unavoidable.
> 
> 	-hpa
> 
> (*) if patching code on SMP was cheaper, we could actually do this
> lazily, and wouldn't have to store a list of patch sites.  I don't feel
> brave enough to go down that route.

This sounds remarkably like what the dynamic function call tracer does.


  reply	other threads:[~2009-05-14  8:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 79+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-05-14  0:16 Performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native identified Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-14  1:10 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-14  8:25   ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2009-05-14 14:05     ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-14 17:36   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-14 17:50     ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-14  8:05 ` [Xen-devel] Performance overhead of paravirt_ops on nativeidentified Jan Beulich
2009-05-14  8:33   ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-14 17:45   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-15  8:10     ` Jan Beulich
2009-05-15 18:50       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-18  7:19         ` Jan Beulich
2009-05-20 22:42           ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-15 18:18 ` [tip:x86/urgent] x86: Fix performance regression caused by paravirt_ops on native kernels tip-bot for Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-21 22:42 ` Performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native identified Chuck Ebbert
2009-05-21 22:48   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-21 23:10     ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-22  1:26     ` Xin, Xiaohui
2009-05-22  3:39       ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-22  4:27       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-22  5:59         ` Xin, Xiaohui
2009-05-22 16:33           ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-22 22:44             ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-22 22:47               ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-25  9:15 ` [benchmark] 1% performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native kernels Ingo Molnar
2009-05-26 18:42   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-28  6:17     ` Nick Piggin
2009-05-28 20:57       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-30 10:23       ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-02 14:18         ` Chris Mason
2009-06-02 14:49           ` Ulrich Drepper
2009-06-02 15:03             ` Chris Mason
2009-06-02 15:22               ` Ulrich Drepper
2009-06-02 16:20                 ` Chris Mason
2009-06-02 18:13                   ` Pekka Enberg
2009-06-02 18:06               ` Pekka Enberg
2009-06-02 18:27                 ` Chris Mason
2009-06-03  6:33             ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-02 19:14           ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-06-02 19:51             ` Chris Mason
2009-06-03 12:38         ` Rusty Russell
2009-06-03 16:09           ` Linus Torvalds
     [not found]             ` <200906041554.37102.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
2009-06-04 15:02               ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-04 21:52                 ` Dave McCracken
2009-06-05  7:31                   ` Gerd Hoffmann
2009-06-05 14:31                     ` Rusty Russell
2009-06-06 18:54                   ` Anders K. Pedersen
2009-06-05  4:46                 ` Rusty Russell
2009-06-05 14:54                   ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-07  0:53                     ` Rusty Russell
2009-06-08 14:53                       ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-09  9:39                 ` Nick Piggin
2009-06-09 11:17                   ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-09 12:10                     ` Nick Piggin
2009-06-09 12:25                       ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-09 12:42                         ` Nick Piggin
2009-06-09 12:56                         ` Avi Kivity
2009-06-09 15:18                         ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-09 23:33                         ` Paul Mackerras
2009-06-10  1:26                           ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-09 15:07                       ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-09 15:09                     ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-06-09 18:06                       ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-09 18:07                         ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-09 22:48                           ` Matthew Garrett
2009-06-09 22:54                             ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-06-09 14:54                   ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-09 14:57                     ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-09 15:55                       ` Avi Kivity
2009-06-09 15:38                     ` Nick Piggin
2009-06-09 16:00                       ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-09 16:21                         ` Nick Piggin
2009-06-09 16:26                           ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-09 16:45                             ` Nick Piggin
2009-06-09 17:08                               ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-10  5:53                                 ` Nick Piggin
2009-06-17  9:40                                   ` Pavel Machek
2009-06-17  9:56                                     ` Nick Piggin
2009-06-10  6:29                             ` Peter Zijlstra

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=1242289506.6642.901.camel@laptop \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jeremy@goop.org \
    --cc=jun.nakajima@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=npiggin@suse.de \
    --cc=rostedt@rostedt.homelinux.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
    --cc=xiaohui.xin@intel.com \
    --cc=xin.li@intel.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