From: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>
To: ak@muc.de
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC] x86-64: Use SSE for copy_page and clear_page
Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 14:16:26 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050530181626.GA10212@kvack.org> (raw)
Hello Andi,
Below is a patch that uses 128 bit SSE instructions for copy_page and
clear_page. This is an improvement on P4 systems as can be seen by
running the test program at http://www.kvack.org/~bcrl/xmm64.c to get
results like:
SSE test program $Id: fast.c,v 1.6 2000/09/23 09:05:45 arjan Exp $ buffer = 0x2aaaaaad6000
clear_page() tests
clear_page function 'warm up run' took 25444 cycles per page
clear_page function 'kernel clear' took 6595 cycles per page
clear_page function '2.4 non MMX' took 7827 cycles per page
clear_page function '2.4 MMX fallback' took 7741 cycles per page
clear_page function '2.4 MMX version' took 6454 cycles per page
clear_page function 'faster_clear_page' took 4344 cycles per page
clear_page function 'even_faster_clear' took 4151 cycles per page
clear_page function 'xmm_clear ' took 3204 cycles per page
clear_page function 'xmma_clear ' took 6080 cycles per page
clear_page function 'xmm2_clear ' took 3370 cycles per page
clear_page function 'xmma2_clear ' took 6115 cycles per page
clear_page function 'kernel clear' took 6583 cycles per page
copy_page() tests
copy_page function 'warm up run' took 9770 cycles per page
copy_page function '2.4 non MMX' took 9758 cycles per page
copy_page function '2.4 MMX fallback' took 9572 cycles per page
copy_page function '2.4 MMX version' took 9405 cycles per page
copy_page function 'faster_copy' took 7407 cycles per page
copy_page function 'even_faster' took 7158 cycles per page
copy_page function 'xmm_copy_page_no' took 6110 cycles per page
copy_page function 'xmm_copy_page' took 5914 cycles per page
copy_page function 'xmma_copy_page' took 5913 cycles per page
copy_page function 'v26_copy_page' took 9168 cycles per page
The SSE clear page fuction is almost twice as fast as the kernel's
current clear_page, while the copy_page implementation is roughly a
third faster. This is likely due to the fact that SSE instructions
can keep the 256 bit wide L2 cache bus at a higher utilisation than
64 bit movs are able to. Comments?
-ben
Signed-off-by: Benjamin LaHaise <benjamin.c.lahaise@intel.com>
:r public_html/patches/v2.6.12-rc4-xmm-2.diff
diff -purN v2.6.12-rc4/arch/x86_64/lib/c_clear_page.c xmm-rc4/arch/x86_64/lib/c_clear_page.c
--- v2.6.12-rc4/arch/x86_64/lib/c_clear_page.c 1969-12-31 19:00:00.000000000 -0500
+++ xmm-rc4/arch/x86_64/lib/c_clear_page.c 2005-05-26 11:16:09.000000000 -0400
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+#include <linux/config.h>
+#include <linux/preempt.h>
+#include <asm/page.h>
+#include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <asm/string.h>
+
+typedef struct { unsigned long a,b; } __attribute__((aligned(16))) xmm_store_t;
+
+void c_clear_page_xmm(void *page)
+{
+ /* Note! gcc doesn't seem to align stack variables properly, so we
+ * need to make use of unaligned loads and stores.
+ */
+ xmm_store_t xmm_save[1];
+ unsigned long cr0;
+ int i;
+
+ preempt_disable();
+ __asm__ __volatile__ (
+ " mov %%cr0,%0\n"
+ " clts\n"
+ " movdqu %%xmm0,(%1)\n"
+ " pxor %%xmm0, %%xmm0\n"
+ : "=&r" (cr0): "r" (xmm_save) : "memory"
+ );
+
+ for(i=0;i<PAGE_SIZE/64;i++)
+ {
+ __asm__ __volatile__ (
+ " movntdq %%xmm0, (%0)\n"
+ " movntdq %%xmm0, 16(%0)\n"
+ " movntdq %%xmm0, 32(%0)\n"
+ " movntdq %%xmm0, 48(%0)\n"
+ : : "r" (page) : "memory");
+ page+=64;
+ }
+
+ __asm__ __volatile__ (
+ " sfence \n "
+ " movdqu (%0),%%xmm0\n"
+ " mov %1,%%cr0\n"
+ :: "r" (xmm_save), "r" (cr0)
+ );
+ preempt_enable();
+}
diff -purN v2.6.12-rc4/arch/x86_64/lib/c_copy_page.c xmm-rc4/arch/x86_64/lib/c_copy_page.c
--- v2.6.12-rc4/arch/x86_64/lib/c_copy_page.c 1969-12-31 19:00:00.000000000 -0500
+++ xmm-rc4/arch/x86_64/lib/c_copy_page.c 2005-05-30 14:07:28.000000000 -0400
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+#include <linux/config.h>
+#include <linux/preempt.h>
+#include <asm/page.h>
+#include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <asm/string.h>
+
+typedef struct { unsigned long a,b; } __attribute__((aligned(16))) xmm_store_t;
+
+void c_copy_page_xmm(void *to, void *from)
+{
+ /* Note! gcc doesn't seem to align stack variables properly, so we
+ * need to make use of unaligned loads and stores.
+ */
+ xmm_store_t xmm_save[2];
+ unsigned long cr0;
+ int i;
+
+ preempt_disable();
+ __asm__ __volatile__ (
+ " prefetchnta (%1)\n"
+ " prefetchnta 64(%1)\n"
+ " prefetchnta 128(%1)\n"
+ " prefetchnta 192(%1)\n"
+ " prefetchnta 256(%1)\n"
+ " mov %%cr0,%0\n"
+ " clts\n"
+ " movdqu %%xmm0, (%1)\n"
+ " movdqu %%xmm1,16(%1)\n"
+ : "=&r" (cr0): "r" (xmm_save) : "memory"
+ );
+
+ for(i=0;i<PAGE_SIZE/32;i++) {
+ __asm__ __volatile__ (
+ " prefetchnta 320(%0)\n"
+ " movdqa (%0),%%xmm0\n"
+ " movdqa 16(%0),%%xmm1\n"
+ " movntdq %%xmm0, (%1)\n"
+ " movntdq %%xmm1, 16(%1)\n"
+ : : "r" (from), "r" (to) : "memory");
+ to += 32;
+ from += 32;
+ }
+
+ __asm__ __volatile__ (
+ " sfence \n "
+ " movdqu (%0),%%xmm0\n"
+ " movdqu 16(%0),%%xmm1\n"
+ " mov %1,%%cr0\n"
+ :: "r" (xmm_save), "r" (cr0)
+ );
+ preempt_enable();
+}
diff -purN v2.6.12-rc4/arch/x86_64/lib/clear_page.S xmm-rc4/arch/x86_64/lib/clear_page.S
--- v2.6.12-rc4/arch/x86_64/lib/clear_page.S 2004-12-24 16:34:33.000000000 -0500
+++ xmm-rc4/arch/x86_64/lib/clear_page.S 2005-05-26 11:27:26.000000000 -0400
@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+#include <asm/cpufeature.h>
+
/*
* Zero a page.
* rdi page
@@ -24,12 +26,25 @@ clear_page:
nop
ret
clear_page_end:
-
+
+ .section .altinstructions,"a"
+ .align 8
+ .quad clear_page
+ .quad clear_page_xmm
+ .byte X86_FEATURE_XMM2
+ .byte clear_page_end-clear_page
+ .byte clear_page_xmm_end-clear_page_xmm
+ .previous
+
+ .globl c_clear_page_xmm
+ .p2align 4
+clear_page_xmm:
+ jmp c_clear_page_xmm+(clear_page_xmm-clear_page)
+clear_page_xmm_end:
+
/* C stepping K8 run faster using the string instructions.
It is also a lot simpler. Use this when possible */
-#include <asm/cpufeature.h>
-
.section .altinstructions,"a"
.align 8
.quad clear_page
diff -purN v2.6.12-rc4/arch/x86_64/lib/copy_page.S xmm-rc4/arch/x86_64/lib/copy_page.S
--- v2.6.12-rc4/arch/x86_64/lib/copy_page.S 2004-12-24 16:34:32.000000000 -0500
+++ xmm-rc4/arch/x86_64/lib/copy_page.S 2005-05-26 11:29:55.000000000 -0400
@@ -76,18 +76,34 @@ copy_page:
movq 2*8(%rsp),%r13
addq $3*8,%rsp
ret
+copy_page_end = .
+#include <asm/cpufeature.h>
+
+ .section .altinstructions,"a"
+ .align 8
+ .quad copy_page
+ .quad copy_page_xmm
+ .byte X86_FEATURE_XMM2
+ .byte copy_page_end-copy_page
+ .byte copy_page_xmm_end-copy_page_xmm
+ .previous
+
+ .globl c_copy_page_xmm
+ .p2align 4
+copy_page_xmm:
+ jmp c_copy_page_xmm+(copy_page_xmm-copy_page)
+copy_page_xmm_end = .
+
/* C stepping K8 run faster using the string copy instructions.
It is also a lot simpler. Use this when possible */
-#include <asm/cpufeature.h>
-
.section .altinstructions,"a"
.align 8
.quad copy_page
.quad copy_page_c
.byte X86_FEATURE_K8_C
- .byte copy_page_c_end-copy_page_c
+ .byte copy_page_end-copy_page
.byte copy_page_c_end-copy_page_c
.previous
diff -purN v2.6.12-rc4/arch/x86_64/lib/Makefile xmm-rc4/arch/x86_64/lib/Makefile
--- v2.6.12-rc4/arch/x86_64/lib/Makefile 2004-12-24 16:34:01.000000000 -0500
+++ xmm-rc4/arch/x86_64/lib/Makefile 2005-05-26 11:26:50.000000000 -0400
@@ -10,5 +10,7 @@ lib-y := csum-partial.o csum-copy.o csum
usercopy.o getuser.o putuser.o \
thunk.o clear_page.o copy_page.o bitstr.o bitops.o
lib-y += memcpy.o memmove.o memset.o copy_user.o
+lib-y += c_clear_page.o
+lib-y += c_copy_page.o
lib-$(CONFIG_HAVE_DEC_LOCK) += dec_and_lock.o
next reply other threads:[~2005-05-30 18:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-05-30 18:16 Benjamin LaHaise [this message]
2005-05-30 18:45 ` [RFC] x86-64: Use SSE for copy_page and clear_page Jeff Garzik
2005-05-30 19:06 ` dean gaudet
2005-05-30 19:11 ` dean gaudet
2005-05-30 19:32 ` Andi Kleen
2005-05-31 8:37 ` Denis Vlasenko
2005-05-31 9:15 ` Denis Vlasenko
2005-05-31 9:23 ` Andi Kleen
2005-05-31 13:59 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2005-06-01 6:22 ` Denis Vlasenko
2005-06-01 6:47 ` Denis Vlasenko
2005-06-01 7:22 ` michael
2005-06-01 7:48 ` Andi Kleen
2005-06-01 7:48 ` Denis Vlasenko
2005-06-01 21:46 ` dean gaudet
2005-06-01 8:01 ` Nick Piggin
2005-05-30 19:38 ` Andi Kleen
2005-05-30 20:05 ` Michael Thonke
2005-05-30 20:14 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2005-05-30 20:42 ` Michael Thonke
2005-05-31 7:11 ` Andi Kleen
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=20050530181626.GA10212@kvack.org \
--to=bcrl@kvack.org \
--cc=ak@muc.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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