Re: [RFC 10/12] x86, rwsem: simplify __down_write

[Ingo Molnar]

* Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> 
> x86 implementation of __down_write is using inline asm to optimize the
> code flow. This however requires that it has go over an additional hop
> for the slow path call_rwsem_down_write_failed which has to
> save_common_regs/restore_common_regs to preserve the calling convention.
> This, however doesn't add much because the fast path only saves one
> register push/pop (rdx) when compared to the generic implementation:
> 
> Before:
> 0000000000000019 <down_write>:
>   19:   e8 00 00 00 00          callq  1e <down_write+0x5>
>   1e:   55                      push   %rbp
>   1f:   48 ba 01 00 00 00 ff    movabs $0xffffffff00000001,%rdx
>   26:   ff ff ff
>   29:   48 89 f8                mov    %rdi,%rax
>   2c:   48 89 e5                mov    %rsp,%rbp
>   2f:   f0 48 0f c1 10          lock xadd %rdx,(%rax)
>   34:   85 d2                   test   %edx,%edx
>   36:   74 05                   je     3d <down_write+0x24>
>   38:   e8 00 00 00 00          callq  3d <down_write+0x24>
>   3d:   65 48 8b 04 25 00 00    mov    %gs:0x0,%rax
>   44:   00 00
>   46:   5d                      pop    %rbp
>   47:   48 89 47 38             mov    %rax,0x38(%rdi)
>   4b:   c3                      retq
> 
> After:
> 0000000000000019 <down_write>:
>   19:   e8 00 00 00 00          callq  1e <down_write+0x5>
>   1e:   55                      push   %rbp
>   1f:   48 b8 01 00 00 00 ff    movabs $0xffffffff00000001,%rax
>   26:   ff ff ff
>   29:   48 89 e5                mov    %rsp,%rbp
>   2c:   53                      push   %rbx
>   2d:   48 89 fb                mov    %rdi,%rbx
>   30:   f0 48 0f c1 07          lock xadd %rax,(%rdi)
>   35:   48 85 c0                test   %rax,%rax
>   38:   74 05                   je     3f <down_write+0x26>
>   3a:   e8 00 00 00 00          callq  3f <down_write+0x26>
>   3f:   65 48 8b 04 25 00 00    mov    %gs:0x0,%rax
>   46:   00 00
>   48:   48 89 43 38             mov    %rax,0x38(%rbx)
>   4c:   5b                      pop    %rbx
>   4d:   5d                      pop    %rbp
>   4e:   c3                      retq

I'm not convinced about the removal of this optimization at all.

> This doesn't seem to justify the code obfuscation and complexity. Use
> the generic implementation instead.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h | 17 +++++------------
>  arch/x86/lib/rwsem.S         |  9 ---------
>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

Turn the argument around, would we be willing to save two instructions off the 
fast path of a commonly used locking construct, with such a simple optimization:

>  arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h | 17 ++++++++++++-----
>  arch/x86/lib/rwsem.S         |  9 +++++++++
>  2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

?

Yes!

So, if you want to remove the assembly code - can we achieve that without hurting 
the generated fast path, using the compiler?

Thanks,

	Ingo