From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754993AbcEBScb (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 2 May 2016 14:32:31 -0400
Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com ([74.125.82.66]:35442 "EHLO
	mail-wm0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754740AbcEBScV (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 2 May 2016 14:32:21 -0400
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 20:32:16 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>,
        X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/10] x86/xsaves: Fix XSAVES known issues
Message-ID: <20160502183216.GA16100@gmail.com>
References: <cover.1457038929.git.yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
 <5723A353.7060209@linux.intel.com>
 <20160429195741.GA15402@test-lenovo>
 <5723BE1F.7040300@linux.intel.com>
 <20160429200709.GA15412@test-lenovo>
 <CALCETrWQUEKKvVcHV+KtuBD=MadaRbvqJGoRipFWmKLCS3T08A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5723C6A7.4020704@linux.intel.com>
 <20160430075343.GA23063@gmail.com>
 <57278014.3050808@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <57278014.3050808@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On 04/30/2016 12:53 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > We can still use the compacted area handling instructions, because presumably 
> > those are the fastest and are also the most optimized ones? But I wouldn't use 
> > them to do dynamic allocation: just allocate the maximum possible FPU save area at 
> > task creation time and never again worry about that detail.
> > 
> > Ok?
> 
> Sounds sane to me.
> 
> BTW, I hacked up your "fpu performance" to compare XSAVE vs. XSAVES:
> 
> > [    0.048347] x86/fpu: Cost of: XSAVE                       insn          :   127 cycles
> > [    0.049134] x86/fpu: Cost of: XSAVES                      insn          :   113 cycles
> > [    0.048492] x86/fpu: Cost of: XRSTOR                      insn          :   120 cycles
> > [    0.049267] x86/fpu: Cost of: XRSTORS                     insn          :   102 cycles
> 
> So I guess we can add that to the list of things that XSAVES is good for.

Absolutely!

> [...]  Granted, the real-world benefit is probably hard to measure because the 
> cache residency of the XSAVE buffer isn't as good when _actually_ context 
> switching, but this at least shows a small theoretical advantage for XSAVES.

Yeah, and anything that was measured for real is far from being theoretical. It's 
simply a best-case microbenchmark figure, but it's still a nice 10+ cycles 
improvement overall - which might become bigger in future CPU generations.

Thanks,

	Ingo