Re: [PATCH] arm64: implement raw_smp_processor_id() using thread_info

From: Mark Rutland
Date: Wed May 01 2024 - 12:41:23 EST


Hi Puranjay,

On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 03:42:36PM +0000, Puranjay Mohan wrote:
> ARM64 defines THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK which means the cpu id can be found
> from current_thread_info()->cpu.

Nice!

This is something that we'd wanted to do, but there were some historical
reasons that prevented that. I think it'd be worth describing that in the
commit message, e.g.

| Historically, arm64 implemented raw_smp_processor_id() as a read of
| current_thread_info()->cpu. This changed when arm64 moved thread_info into
| task struct, as at the time CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK made core code use
| thread_struct::cpu for the cpu number, and due to header dependencies
| prevented using this in raw_smp_processor_id(). As a workaround, we moved to
| using a percpu variable in commit:
|
| 57c82954e77fa12c ("arm64: make cpu number a percpu variable")
|
| Since then, thread_info::cpu was reintroduced, and core code was made to use
| this in commits:
|
| 001430c1910df65a ("arm64: add CPU field to struct thread_info")
| bcf9033e5449bdca ("sched: move CPU field back into thread_info if THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK=y")
|
| Consequently it is possible to use current_thread_info()->cpu again.

> Implement raw_smp_processor_id() using the above. This decreases the
> number of emitted instructions like in the following example:
>
> Dump of assembler code for function bpf_get_smp_processor_id:
> 0xffff8000802cd608 <+0>: nop
> 0xffff8000802cd60c <+4>: nop
> 0xffff8000802cd610 <+8>: adrp x0, 0xffff800082138000
> 0xffff8000802cd614 <+12>: mrs x1, tpidr_el1
> 0xffff8000802cd618 <+16>: add x0, x0, #0x8
> 0xffff8000802cd61c <+20>: ldrsw x0, [x0, x1]
> 0xffff8000802cd620 <+24>: ret
>
> After this patch:
>
> Dump of assembler code for function bpf_get_smp_processor_id:
> 0xffff8000802c9130 <+0>: nop
> 0xffff8000802c9134 <+4>: nop
> 0xffff8000802c9138 <+8>: mrs x0, sp_el0
> 0xffff8000802c913c <+12>: ldr w0, [x0, #24]
> 0xffff8000802c9140 <+16>: ret
>
> A microbenchmark[1] was built to measure the performance improvement
> provided by this change. It calls the following function given number of
> times and finds the runtime overhead:
>
> static noinline int get_cpu_id(void)
> {
> return smp_processor_id();
> }
>
> Run the benchmark like:
> modprobe smp_processor_id nr_function_calls=1000000000
>
> +--------------------------+------------------------+
> | | Number of Calls | Time taken |
> +--------+-----------------+------------------------+
> | Before | 1000000000 | 1602888401ns |
> +--------+-----------------+------------------------+
> | After | 1000000000 | 1206212658ns |
> +--------+-----------------+------------------------+
> | Difference (decrease) | 396675743ns (24.74%) |
> +---------------------------------------------------+
>
> This improvement is in this very specific microbenchmark but it proves
> the point.
>
> The percpu variable cpu_number is left as it is because it is used in
> set_smp_ipi_range()
>
> [1] https://github.com/puranjaymohan/linux/commit/77d3fdd
>
> Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h | 8 ++------
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h
> index efb13112b408..88fd2ab805ec 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h
> @@ -34,13 +34,9 @@
> DECLARE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(int, cpu_number);
>
> /*
> - * We don't use this_cpu_read(cpu_number) as that has implicit writes to
> - * preempt_count, and associated (compiler) barriers, that we'd like to avoid
> - * the expense of. If we're preemptible, the value can be stale at use anyway.
> - * And we can't use this_cpu_ptr() either, as that winds up recursing back
> - * here under CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT=y.
> + * This relies on THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK, but arm64 defines that unconditionally.
> */
> -#define raw_smp_processor_id() (*raw_cpu_ptr(&cpu_number))
> +#define raw_smp_processor_id() (current_thread_info()->cpu)

I think we can (and should) delete the comment entirely.

Mark.