[PATCH v3 0/4] x86: faster mb()+documentation tweaks

[PATCH v3 0/4] x86: faster mb()+documentation tweaks

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

mb() typically uses mfence on modern x86, but a micro-benchmark shows that it's
2 to 3 times slower than lock; addl that we use on older CPUs.

So let's use the locked variant everywhere.

While I was at it, I found some inconsistencies in comments in
arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h

The documentation fixes are included first - I verified that
they do not change the generated code at all. They should be
safe to apply directly.

The last patch changes mb() to lock addl. I was unable to
measure a speed difference on a macro benchmark,
but I noted that even doing
	#define mb() barrier()
seems to make no difference for most benchmarks
(it causes hangs sometimes, of course).

HPA asked that the last patch is deferred until we hear back from
intel, which makes sense of course. So it needs HPA's ack.

I hope I'm not splitting this up too much - the reason is I wanted to isolate
the code changes (that people might want to test for performance)
from comment changes approved by Linus, from (so far unreviewed) changes
I came up with myself.

Changes from v2:
	add patch adding cc clobber for addl
	tweak commit log for patch 2
	use addl at SP-4 (as opposed to SP) to reduce data dependencies

Michael S. Tsirkin (4):
  x86: add cc clobber for addl
  x86: drop a comment left over from X86_OOSTORE
  x86: tweak the comment about use of wmb for IO
  x86: drop mfence in favor of lock+addl

 arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h | 20 +++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

-- 
MST

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] x86: faster mb()+documentation tweaks

[Borislav Petkov]

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:12:22PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> mb() typically uses mfence on modern x86, but a micro-benchmark shows that it's
> 2 to 3 times slower than lock; addl that we use on older CPUs.
> 
> So let's use the locked variant everywhere.
> 
> While I was at it, I found some inconsistencies in comments in
> arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h
> 
> The documentation fixes are included first - I verified that
> they do not change the generated code at all. They should be
> safe to apply directly.
> 
> The last patch changes mb() to lock addl. I was unable to
> measure a speed difference on a macro benchmark,
> but I noted that even doing
> 	#define mb() barrier()
> seems to make no difference for most benchmarks
> (it causes hangs sometimes, of course).
> 
> HPA asked that the last patch is deferred until we hear back from
> intel, which makes sense of course. So it needs HPA's ack.
> 
> I hope I'm not splitting this up too much - the reason is I wanted to isolate
> the code changes (that people might want to test for performance)
> from comment changes approved by Linus, from (so far unreviewed) changes
> I came up with myself.
> 
> Changes from v2:
> 	add patch adding cc clobber for addl
> 	tweak commit log for patch 2
> 	use addl at SP-4 (as opposed to SP) to reduce data dependencies
> 
> Michael S. Tsirkin (4):
>   x86: add cc clobber for addl
>   x86: drop a comment left over from X86_OOSTORE
>   x86: tweak the comment about use of wmb for IO

First three look ok to me regardless of what happens with 4. So applied.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] x86: faster mb()+documentation tweaks

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:39:34PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > Michael S. Tsirkin (4):
> >   x86: add cc clobber for addl
> >   x86: drop a comment left over from X86_OOSTORE
> >   x86: tweak the comment about use of wmb for IO
> 
> First three look ok to me regardless of what happens with 4. So applied.

Sorry - in which tree are these applied?
Thanks,

-- 
MST

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] x86: faster mb()+documentation tweaks

[Boris Petkov]

"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>Sorry - in which tree are these applied?

They'll appear in tip at some point.


-- 
Sent from a small device: formatting sux and brevity is inevitable.