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.
next prev parent 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