On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 22:01:04 +1100 Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-11-18 at 14:26 +1100, Cyril Bur wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S b/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S > > index c8b4225..46e9869 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.S > > @@ -210,7 +210,54 @@ system_call: /* label this so stack > > traces look sane */ > > li r11,-MAX_ERRNO > > andi. > > r0,r9,(_TIF_SYSCALL_DOTRACE|_TIF_SINGLESTEP|_TIF_USER_WORK_MASK|_TIF_PERSYSCALL_MASK) > > bne- syscall_exit_work > > - cmpld r3,r11 > > + > > + /* > > + * This is an assembly version of checks performed in restore_math() > > + * to avoid calling C unless absolutely necessary. > > + * Note: In order to simplify the assembly, if the FP or VEC registers > > + * are hot (and therefore restore_math() isn't called) the > > + * LOAD_{FP,VEC} thread counter doesn't get incremented. > > + * This is likely the best thing to do anyway because hot regs indicate > > + * that the workload is doing a lot of syscalls that can be handled > > + * quickly and without the need to touch FP or VEC regs (by the kernel). > > + * a) If this workload is long running then this is exactly what the > > + * kernel should be doing. > > + * b) If this workload isn't long running then we'll soon fall back to > > + * calling into C and the counter will be incremented regularly again > > + * anyway. > > + */ > > + ld r9,PACACURRENT(r13) > > + andi. r0,r8,MSR_FP > > + addi r9,r9,THREAD > > + lbz r5,THREAD_LOAD_FP(r9) > > + /* > > + * Goto 2 if !r0 && r5 > > + * The cmpb works because r5 can only have bits set in the lowest byte > > + * and r0 may or may not have bit 13 set (different byte) but will have > > + * a zero low byte therefore the low bytes must differ if r5 == true > > + * and the bit 13 byte must be the same if !r0 > > + */ > > + cmpb r7,r0,r5 > > cmpb is new since Power6, which means it doesn't exist on Cell -> Program > Check :) > Oops, sorry. > I'm testing a patch using crandc, but I don't like it. > > I'm not a big fan of the logic here, it's unpleasantly complicated. Did you > benchmark going to C to do the checks? Or I wonder if we could just check > THREAD_LOAD_FP || THREAD_LOAD_VEC and if either is set we go to > restore_math(). > I didn't benchmark going to C mostly because you wanted to avoid calling C unless necessary in that path. Based off the results I got benchmarking the this series I expect calling C will also be in the noise of removing the exception. > Or on the other hand we check !MSR_FP && !MSR_VEC and if so we go to > restore_math()? > That seems like the best check to leave in the assembly if you want to avoid complicated assembly in there. > > + cmpldi r7,0xff0 > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ALTIVEC > > + beq 2f > > + > > + lbz r9,THREAD_LOAD_VEC(r9) > > + andis. r0,r8,MSR_VEC@h > > + /* Skip (goto 3) if r0 || !r9 */ > > + bne 3f > > + cmpldi r9,0 > > + beq 3f > > +#else > > + bne 3f > > +#endif > > +2: addi r3,r1,STACK_FRAME_OVERHEAD > > + bl restore_math > > + ld r8,_MSR(r1) > > + ld r3,RESULT(r1) > > + li r11,-MAX_ERRNO > > + > > +3: cmpld r3,r11 > > ld r5,_CCR(r1) > > bge- syscall_error > > .Lsyscall_error_cont: > > > cheers > _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev