Re: [PATCH 0/7] preempt_count rework -v2

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> These patches optimize preempt_enable by firstly folding the preempt and
> need_resched tests into one -- this should work for all architectures. And
> secondly by providing per-arch preempt_count implementations; with x86 using
> per-cpu preempt_count for fastest access.
> 
> 
> These patches have been boot tested on CONFIG_PREEMPT=y x86_64 and survive
> building a x86_64-defconfig kernel.
> 
> kernel/sched/core.c:kick_process() now looks like:
> 
>   ffffffff8106f3f0 <kick_process>:
>   ffffffff8106f3f0:       55                      push   %rbp
>   ffffffff8106f3f1:       65 ff 04 25 e0 b7 00    incl   %gs:0xb7e0
>   ffffffff8106f3f8:       00 
>   ffffffff8106f3f9:       48 89 e5                mov    %rsp,%rbp
>   ffffffff8106f3fc:       48 8b 47 08             mov    0x8(%rdi),%rax
>   ffffffff8106f400:       8b 50 18                mov    0x18(%rax),%edx
>   ffffffff8106f403:       65 8b 04 25 1c b0 00    mov    %gs:0xb01c,%eax
>   ffffffff8106f40a:       00 
>   ffffffff8106f40b:       39 c2                   cmp    %eax,%edx
>   ffffffff8106f40d:       74 1b                   je     ffffffff8106f42a <kick_process+0x3a>
>   ffffffff8106f40f:       89 d1                   mov    %edx,%ecx
>   ffffffff8106f411:       48 c7 c0 00 2c 01 00    mov    $0x12c00,%rax
>   ffffffff8106f418:       48 8b 0c cd a0 bc cb    mov    -0x7e344360(,%rcx,8),%rcx
>   ffffffff8106f41f:       81 
>   ffffffff8106f420:       48 3b bc 08 00 08 00    cmp    0x800(%rax,%rcx,1),%rdi
>   ffffffff8106f427:       00 
>   ffffffff8106f428:       74 1e                   je     ffffffff8106f448 <kick_process+0x58>
> * ffffffff8106f42a:       65 ff 0c 25 e0 b7 00    decl   %gs:0xb7e0
>   ffffffff8106f431:       00 
> * ffffffff8106f432:       0f 94 c0                sete   %al
> * ffffffff8106f435:       84 c0                   test   %al,%al
> * ffffffff8106f437:       75 02                   jne    ffffffff8106f43b <kick_process+0x4b>
>   ffffffff8106f439:       5d                      pop    %rbp
>   ffffffff8106f43a:       c3                      retq   
> * ffffffff8106f43b:       e8 b0 b6 f9 ff          callq  ffffffff8100aaf0 <___preempt_schedule>

Mind also posting the 'before' assembly, to make it clear how much we've 
improved things?

>   ffffffff8106f440:       5d                      pop    %rbp
>   ffffffff8106f441:       c3                      retq   
>   ffffffff8106f442:       66 0f 1f 44 00 00       nopw   0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
>   ffffffff8106f448:       89 d7                   mov    %edx,%edi
>   ffffffff8106f44a:       66 0f 1f 44 00 00       nopw   0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
>   ffffffff8106f450:       ff 15 ea e0 ba 00       callq  *0xbae0ea(%rip)        # ffffffff81c1d540 <smp_ops+0x20>
>   ffffffff8106f456:       eb d2                   jmp    ffffffff8106f42a <kick_process+0x3a>
>   ffffffff8106f458:       0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00    nopl   0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
>   ffffffff8106f45f:       00 
> 
> Where the '*' marked lines are preempt_enable(), sadly GCC isn't able to 
> get rid of the sete+test :/ Its a rather frequent pattern in the kernel, 
> so 'fixing' the x86 GCC backend to recognise this might be useful.

So what we do in kick_process() is:

        preempt_disable();
        cpu = task_cpu(p);
        if ((cpu != smp_processor_id()) && task_curr(p))
                smp_send_reschedule(cpu);
        preempt_enable();

The preempt_disable() looks sweet:

>   ffffffff8106f3f1:       65 ff 04 25 e0 b7 00    incl   %gs:0xb7e0
>   ffffffff8106f3f8:       00 

and the '*' you marked is the preempt_enable() portion, which, with your 
new code, looks like this:

 #define preempt_check_resched() \
 do { \
        if (unlikely(!*preempt_count_ptr())) \
                preempt_schedule(); \
 } while (0)

Which GCC translates to:

> * ffffffff8106f42a:       65 ff 0c 25 e0 b7 00    decl   %gs:0xb7e0
>   ffffffff8106f431:       00 
> * ffffffff8106f432:       0f 94 c0                sete   %al
> * ffffffff8106f435:       84 c0                   test   %al,%al
> * ffffffff8106f437:       75 02                   jne    ffffffff8106f43b <kick_process+0x4b>

So, is the problem that GCC cannot pass a 'CPU flags' state out of asm(), 
only an explicit (pseudo-)value, right?

Ideally we'd like to have something like:

> * ffffffff8106f42a:       65 ff 0c 25 e0 b7 00    decl   %gs:0xb7e0
>   ffffffff8106f431:       00 
> * ffffffff8106f437:       75 02                   jne    ffffffff8106f43b <kick_process+0x4b>

right?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/