From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:43002)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1R8FBM-0006pW-EM
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:41:33 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1R8FBL-0005gT-Ce
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:41:32 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:21835)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1R8FBK-0005gO-S8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:41:31 -0400
Message-ID: <4E80B944.4040209@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:41:24 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4E802DDD.8090100@siemens.com>
	<CAGdaadZ=w-J=krctPHWO2MD4_h2ByPkW9GzERCWLNN3YBZ-RGA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABoDooMzOLFAapuXYFRVeK6ohO9apkZwFqdXCh6FnxNeDj=A3A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABoDooMzOLFAapuXYFRVeK6ohO9apkZwFqdXCh6FnxNeDj=A3A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] tcg: Remove stack protection from helper
 functions
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Laurent Desnogues <laurent.desnogues@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>, Mulyadi Santosa <mulyadi.santosa@gmail.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 09/26/2011 11:15 AM, Laurent Desnogues wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Mulyadi Santosa
> <mulyadi.santosa@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >  Hi...
> >
> >  On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 14:46, Jan Kiszka<jan.kiszka@siemens.com>  wrote:
> >>  This increases the overhead of frequently executed helpers.
> >>
> >>  Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka<jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
> >
> >  IMHO, stack protector setup put more stuffs during epilogue, but quite
> >  likely it is negligible unless it cause too much L1 cache misses. So,
> >  I think this micro tuning is somewhat unnecessary but still okay.
>
> The impact of stack protection is very high for instance running
> FFmpeg ARM with NEON optimizations:  a few months ago I
> measured that removing stack protection improved the run time
> by more than 10%.  Of course it's extreme since the proportion
> of NEON instructions (and hence of helper calls) is very high.

I saw a lot of helper calls for sse in ordinary x86_64 code, likely for 
memcpy/cmp and friends.  Native tcg ops for common vector instructions 
would probably be quite a speedup.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function