From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
To: mjguzik@gmail.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, x86@kernel.org,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: prevent gcc from emitting rep movsq/stosq for inlined ops
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:17:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <948fffdc-d0d8-49c4-90b6-b91f282f76c9@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGudoHEV-PFSr-xKUx5GkTf4KasJc=aNNzQbkoTnFVLisKti+A@mail.gmail.com>
> Please make this a gcc bug-report instead - I really don't want to
> have random compiler-specific tuning options in the kernel. Because
> that whole memcpy-strategy thing is something that gets tuned by a lot
> of other compiler options (ie -march and different versions).
I've discussed this with PeterZ in the past, although I can't for the
life of me find the bugzilla ticket I thought I opened on the matter.
(Maybe I never got that far).
The behaviour wanted is:
1) Convert to plain plain accesses (so they can be merged/combined/etc), or
2) Emit a library call
because we do provide forms that are better than the GCC-chosen "REP
MOVSQ with manual alignment" in the general case.
Taking a leaf out of the repoline book, the ideal library call(s) would be:
CALL __x86_thunk_rep_{mov,stos}sb
using the REP ABI (parameters in %rcx/%rdi/etc), rather than the SYSV ABI.
For current/future processors, which have fast reps of all short/zero
flavours, we can even inline the REP {MOV,STO}S instruction to avoid the
call.
For older microarchitectures, they can reuse the existing memcpy/memset
implementations, just with marginally less parameter shuffling.
How does this sound?
~Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-02 18:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-02 13:42 [RFC PATCH] x86: prevent gcc from emitting rep movsq/stosq for inlined ops Mateusz Guzik
2025-04-02 16:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2025-04-02 16:27 ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-04-02 18:17 ` Andrew Cooper [this message]
2025-04-02 18:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-04-02 18:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2025-04-02 18:40 ` Andrew Cooper
2025-04-02 18:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2025-04-02 23:39 ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-04-13 10:27 ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-04-13 18:20 ` David Laight
2025-04-13 18:58 ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-04-02 22:29 ` David Laight
2025-04-02 23:15 ` Mateusz Guzik
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=948fffdc-d0d8-49c4-90b6-b91f282f76c9@citrix.com \
--to=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mjguzik@gmail.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@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