public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com>
To: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>
Cc: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc patch] i386: don't save eflags on task switch
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 20:17:44 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <454D65E8.3000409@vmware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061105035556.GQ9057@kvack.org>

Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 11:09:42AM -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote:
>   
>> Every processor I've ever measured it on, popf is slower.  On P4, for 
>> example, pushf is 6 cycles, and popf is 54.  On Opteron, it is 2 / 12.  
>> On Xeon, it is 7 / 91.
>>     
>
> pushf has to wait until all flag dependancies can be resolved.  On the 
> P4 with >100 instructions in flight, that can take a long time.  Popf 
> on the other hand has no dependancies on outstanding instructions as it 
> resets the machine state.
>   

Yes, but as Linus points out popf is most likely microcoded, thus much 
slower.  Flag dependency is not unique to pushf, many much more common 
instructions (adc, jcc, sbc, cmovcc, movs, stos, ...) have flag 
dependencies, which can still be pipeline forwarded.  I think the raw 
cycle counts speak for themselves, despite the fact that I only measured 
instruction latency, not throughput.  Using a branch to eliminate a 
pushf is thus probably not a win in most cases.

Zach

  parent reply	other threads:[~2006-11-05  4:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-11-04  6:56 [rfc patch] i386: don't save eflags on task switch Chuck Ebbert
2006-11-04 19:09 ` Zachary Amsden
2006-11-04 19:35   ` Linus Torvalds
2006-11-05  3:55   ` Benjamin LaHaise
2006-11-05  4:13     ` Linus Torvalds
2006-11-05  5:41       ` Andi Kleen
2006-11-05  8:01         ` Zachary Amsden
2006-11-05 17:01           ` Andi Kleen
2006-11-05 17:26             ` Linus Torvalds
2006-11-05 17:34               ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-11-05 17:51                 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-11-05 22:48                   ` Zachary Amsden
2006-11-05 18:52               ` Andi Kleen
2006-11-05 16:12         ` Linus Torvalds
2006-11-05 16:54           ` Andi Kleen
2006-11-05 17:20             ` Linus Torvalds
2006-11-05  4:17     ` Zachary Amsden [this message]
2006-11-05 20:10       ` H. Peter Anvin
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-11-04  0:00 Chuck Ebbert
2006-11-04  0:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-11-04  1:36   ` 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=454D65E8.3000409@vmware.com \
    --to=zach@vmware.com \
    --cc=76306.1226@compuserve.com \
    --cc=ak@suse.de \
    --cc=bcrl@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.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