Instructions lmw/stmw are interesting for functions that are rarely
used and not in the cache, because only one instruction is to be
copied into the instruction cache instead of 19. However those
instruction are less performant than 19x raw lwz/stw as they require
synchronisation plus one additional cycle.
SAVE_NVGPRS / REST_NVGPRS are used in only a few places which are
mostly in interrupts entries/exits and in task switch so they are
likely already in the cache.
Using standard lwz improves null_syscall selftest by:
- 10 cycles on mpc832x.
- 2 cycles on mpc8xx.
Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <[email protected]>
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/ppc_asm.h | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/ppc_asm.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/ppc_asm.h
index ffe712307e11..349fc0ec0dbb 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/ppc_asm.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/ppc_asm.h
@@ -28,8 +28,8 @@
#else
#define SAVE_GPR(n, base) stw n,GPR0+4*(n)(base)
#define REST_GPR(n, base) lwz n,GPR0+4*(n)(base)
-#define SAVE_NVGPRS(base) stmw 13, GPR0+4*13(base)
-#define REST_NVGPRS(base) lmw 13, GPR0+4*13(base)
+#define SAVE_NVGPRS(base) SAVE_GPR(13, base); SAVE_8GPRS(14, base); SAVE_10GPRS(22, base)
+#define REST_NVGPRS(base) REST_GPR(13, base); REST_8GPRS(14, base); REST_10GPRS(22, base)
#endif
#define SAVE_2GPRS(n, base) SAVE_GPR(n, base); SAVE_GPR(n+1, base)
--
2.25.0
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 03:29:12PM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Instructions lmw/stmw are interesting for functions that are rarely
> used and not in the cache, because only one instruction is to be
> copied into the instruction cache instead of 19. However those
> instruction are less performant than 19x raw lwz/stw as they require
> synchronisation plus one additional cycle.
lmw takes N+2 cycles for loading N words on 603/604/750/7400, and N+3 on
7450. stmw takes N+1 cycles for storing N words on 603, N+2 on 604/750/
7400, and N+3 on 7450 (load latency is 3 instead of 2 on 7450).
There is no synchronisation needed, although there is some serialisation,
which of course doesn't mean much since there can be only 6 or 8 or so
insns executing at once anyway.
So, these insns are almost never slower, they can easily win cycles back
because of the smaller code, too.
What 32-bit core do you see where load/store multiple are more than a
fraction of a cycle (per memory access) slower?
> SAVE_NVGPRS / REST_NVGPRS are used in only a few places which are
> mostly in interrupts entries/exits and in task switch so they are
> likely already in the cache.
Nothing is likely in the cache on the older cores (except in
microbenchmarks), the caches are not big enough for that!
> Using standard lwz improves null_syscall selftest by:
> - 10 cycles on mpc832x.
> - 2 cycles on mpc8xx.
And in real benchmarks?
On mpccore both lmw and stmw are only N+1 btw. But the serialization
might cost another cycle here?
Segher
Le 23/08/2021 à 20:46, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 03:29:12PM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> Instructions lmw/stmw are interesting for functions that are rarely
>> used and not in the cache, because only one instruction is to be
>> copied into the instruction cache instead of 19. However those
>> instruction are less performant than 19x raw lwz/stw as they require
>> synchronisation plus one additional cycle.
>
> lmw takes N+2 cycles for loading N words on 603/604/750/7400, and N+3 on
> 7450. stmw takes N+1 cycles for storing N words on 603, N+2 on 604/750/
> 7400, and N+3 on 7450 (load latency is 3 instead of 2 on 7450).
>
> There is no synchronisation needed, although there is some serialisation,
> which of course doesn't mean much since there can be only 6 or 8 or so
> insns executing at once anyway.
Yes I meant serialisation, isn't it the same as synchronisation ?
>
> So, these insns are almost never slower, they can easily win cycles back
> because of the smaller code, too.
>
> What 32-bit core do you see where load/store multiple are more than a
> fraction of a cycle (per memory access) slower?
>
>> SAVE_NVGPRS / REST_NVGPRS are used in only a few places which are
>> mostly in interrupts entries/exits and in task switch so they are
>> likely already in the cache.
>
> Nothing is likely in the cache on the older cores (except in
> microbenchmarks), the caches are not big enough for that!
Even syscall entries/exit pathes and/or most frequent interrupts entries and interrupt exit ?
>
>> Using standard lwz improves null_syscall selftest by:
>> - 10 cycles on mpc832x.
>> - 2 cycles on mpc8xx.
>
> And in real benchmarks?
Don't know, what benchmark should I use to evaluate syscall entry/exit if 'null_syscall' selftest is
not relevant ?
>
> On mpccore both lmw and stmw are only N+1 btw. But the serialization
> might cost another cycle here?
>
That coherent on MPC8xx, that's only 2 cycles.
But on the mpc832x which has a e300c2 core, it looks like I have 10 cycles difference. Is anything
wrong ?
Christophe
Hi!
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 07:54:22AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Le 23/08/2021 ? 20:46, Segher Boessenkool a ?crit?:
> >On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 03:29:12PM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> >>Instructions lmw/stmw are interesting for functions that are rarely
> >>used and not in the cache, because only one instruction is to be
> >>copied into the instruction cache instead of 19. However those
> >>instruction are less performant than 19x raw lwz/stw as they require
> >>synchronisation plus one additional cycle.
> >
> >lmw takes N+2 cycles for loading N words on 603/604/750/7400, and N+3 on
> >7450. stmw takes N+1 cycles for storing N words on 603, N+2 on 604/750/
> >7400, and N+3 on 7450 (load latency is 3 instead of 2 on 7450).
> >
> >There is no synchronisation needed, although there is some serialisation,
> >which of course doesn't mean much since there can be only 6 or 8 or so
> >insns executing at once anyway.
>
> Yes I meant serialisation, isn't it the same as synchronisation ?
Ha no, synchronisation are insns like sync and eieio :-) Synchronisation
is architectural, serialisation is (mostly) not, it is a feature of the
specific core.
> >So, these insns are almost never slower, they can easily win cycles back
> >because of the smaller code, too.
> >
> >What 32-bit core do you see where load/store multiple are more than a
> >fraction of a cycle (per memory access) slower?
> >
> >>SAVE_NVGPRS / REST_NVGPRS are used in only a few places which are
> >>mostly in interrupts entries/exits and in task switch so they are
> >>likely already in the cache.
> >
> >Nothing is likely in the cache on the older cores (except in
> >microbenchmarks), the caches are not big enough for that!
>
> Even syscall entries/exit pathes and/or most frequent interrupts entries
> and interrupt exit ?
It has to be measured. You are probably right for programs that use a
lot of system calls, and (unmeasurably :-) ) wrong for those that don't.
So that is a good argument: it speeds up some scenarios, and does not
make any real impact on anything else.
This also does not replace all {l,st}mw in the kernel, only those on
interrupt paths. So it is not necessarily bad :-)
> >>Using standard lwz improves null_syscall selftest by:
> >>- 10 cycles on mpc832x.
> >>- 2 cycles on mpc8xx.
> >
> >And in real benchmarks?
>
> Don't know, what benchmark should I use to evaluate syscall entry/exit if
> 'null_syscall' selftest is not relevant ?
Some real workload (something that uses memory and computational insns a
lot, in addition to many syscalls).
> >On mpccore both lmw and stmw are only N+1 btw. But the serialization
> >might cost another cycle here?
>
> That coherent on MPC8xx, that's only 2 cycles.
> But on the mpc832x which has a e300c2 core, it looks like I have 10 cycles
> difference. Is anything wrong ?
I don't know that core very well, I'll have a look.
Segher
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 08:16:00AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 07:54:22AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > >On mpccore both lmw and stmw are only N+1 btw. But the serialization
> > >might cost another cycle here?
> >
> > That coherent on MPC8xx, that's only 2 cycles.
> > But on the mpc832x which has a e300c2 core, it looks like I have 10 cycles
> > difference. Is anything wrong ?
>
> I don't know that core very well, I'll have a look.
So, I don't see any difference between e300c2 and e300c1 (which is 603
basically, for this) that is significant here. The e300c2 has two
integer units instead of just one, but it still has only one load/store
unit, and I don't see anything else that could matter either. Huh.
Segher
From: Segher Boessenkool
> Sent: 24 August 2021 16:28
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 08:16:00AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 07:54:22AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > > >On mpccore both lmw and stmw are only N+1 btw. But the serialization
> > > >might cost another cycle here?
> > >
> > > That coherent on MPC8xx, that's only 2 cycles.
> > > But on the mpc832x which has a e300c2 core, it looks like I have 10 cycles
> > > difference. Is anything wrong ?
> >
> > I don't know that core very well, I'll have a look.
>
> So, I don't see any difference between e300c2 and e300c1 (which is 603
> basically, for this) that is significant here. The e300c2 has two
> integer units instead of just one, but it still has only one load/store
> unit, and I don't see anything else that could matter either. Huh.
Is the cpu as brain-damaged as the (old) strongarm (SA1100 etc)
where ldm/stm always took 1 clock to check each register bit
regardless of the number of registers to copy?
(IIRC it also took the same length of time when conditionally not
executed.)
If x86 had ever had ldm/stm then it would end up being a microcoded
instruction and take forever to decode.
Intel never managed to optimise 'loop' (dec %cx and jump nz).
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Le 24/08/2021 à 15:16, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 07:54:22AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> Le 23/08/2021 à 20:46, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
>>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 03:29:12PM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>> Instructions lmw/stmw are interesting for functions that are rarely
>>>> used and not in the cache, because only one instruction is to be
>>>> copied into the instruction cache instead of 19. However those
>>>> instruction are less performant than 19x raw lwz/stw as they require
>>>> synchronisation plus one additional cycle.
>>>
>>> lmw takes N+2 cycles for loading N words on 603/604/750/7400, and N+3 on
>>> 7450. stmw takes N+1 cycles for storing N words on 603, N+2 on 604/750/
>>> 7400, and N+3 on 7450 (load latency is 3 instead of 2 on 7450).
>>>
>>> There is no synchronisation needed, although there is some serialisation,
>>> which of course doesn't mean much since there can be only 6 or 8 or so
>>> insns executing at once anyway.
>>
>> Yes I meant serialisation, isn't it the same as synchronisation ?
>
> Ha no, synchronisation are insns like sync and eieio :-) Synchronisation
> is architectural, serialisation is (mostly) not, it is a feature of the
> specific core.
>
>>> So, these insns are almost never slower, they can easily win cycles back
>>> because of the smaller code, too.
>>>
>>> What 32-bit core do you see where load/store multiple are more than a
>>> fraction of a cycle (per memory access) slower?
>>>
>>>> SAVE_NVGPRS / REST_NVGPRS are used in only a few places which are
>>>> mostly in interrupts entries/exits and in task switch so they are
>>>> likely already in the cache.
>>>
>>> Nothing is likely in the cache on the older cores (except in
>>> microbenchmarks), the caches are not big enough for that!
>>
>> Even syscall entries/exit pathes and/or most frequent interrupts entries
>> and interrupt exit ?
>
> It has to be measured. You are probably right for programs that use a
> lot of system calls, and (unmeasurably :-) ) wrong for those that don't.
>
> So that is a good argument: it speeds up some scenarios, and does not
> make any real impact on anything else.
>
> This also does not replace all {l,st}mw in the kernel, only those on
> interrupt paths. So it is not necessarily bad :-)
Yes exactly, I wanted to focus on interrupt paths which are the bottle neck.
So I take it that you finally don't disagree with the change.
By the way, it has to be noted that later versions of GCC do less and less use of lmw/stmw. See for
exemple show_user_instructions():
c0007114 <show_user_instructions>:
c0007114: 94 21 ff 50 stwu r1,-176(r1)
c0007118: 7d 80 00 26 mfcr r12
c000711c: 7c 08 02 a6 mflr r0
c0007120: 93 01 00 90 stw r24,144(r1)
c0007124: 93 21 00 94 stw r25,148(r1)
c0007128: 93 41 00 98 stw r26,152(r1)
c000712c: 93 61 00 9c stw r27,156(r1)
c0007130: 93 81 00 a0 stw r28,160(r1)
c0007134: 93 c1 00 a8 stw r30,168(r1)
c0007138: 91 81 00 8c stw r12,140(r1)
c000713c: 90 01 00 b4 stw r0,180(r1)
c0007140: 93 a1 00 a4 stw r29,164(r1)
c0007144: 93 e1 00 ac stw r31,172(r1)
...
c0007244: 80 01 00 b4 lwz r0,180(r1)
c0007248: 81 81 00 8c lwz r12,140(r1)
c000724c: 83 01 00 90 lwz r24,144(r1)
c0007250: 83 21 00 94 lwz r25,148(r1)
c0007254: 83 41 00 98 lwz r26,152(r1)
c0007258: 83 61 00 9c lwz r27,156(r1)
c000725c: 83 81 00 a0 lwz r28,160(r1)
c0007260: 83 a1 00 a4 lwz r29,164(r1)
c0007264: 83 c1 00 a8 lwz r30,168(r1)
c0007268: 83 e1 00 ac lwz r31,172(r1)
c000726c: 7c 08 03 a6 mtlr r0
c0007270: 7d 80 81 20 mtcrf 8,r12
c0007274: 38 21 00 b0 addi r1,r1,176
c0007278: 4e 80 00 20 blr
On older version (GCC 5.5 here) it used to be:
00000408 <show_user_instructions>:
408: 7c 08 02 a6 mflr r0
40c: 94 21 ff 40 stwu r1,-192(r1)
410: 7d 80 00 26 mfcr r12
414: be a1 00 94 stmw r21,148(r1)
418: 91 81 00 90 stw r12,144(r1)
41c: 90 01 00 c4 stw r0,196(r1)
...
504: 80 01 00 c4 lwz r0,196(r1)
508: 81 81 00 90 lwz r12,144(r1)
50c: 7c 08 03 a6 mtlr r0
510: ba a1 00 94 lmw r21,148(r1)
514: 7d 80 81 20 mtcrf 8,r12
518: 38 21 00 c0 addi r1,r1,192
51c: 4e 80 00 20 blr
Christophe
On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 15:29:12 +0000 (UTC), Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Instructions lmw/stmw are interesting for functions that are rarely
> used and not in the cache, because only one instruction is to be
> copied into the instruction cache instead of 19. However those
> instruction are less performant than 19x raw lwz/stw as they require
> synchronisation plus one additional cycle.
>
> SAVE_NVGPRS / REST_NVGPRS are used in only a few places which are
> mostly in interrupts entries/exits and in task switch so they are
> likely already in the cache.
>
> [...]
Applied to powerpc/next.
[1/1] powerpc/32: Don't use lmw/stmw for saving/restoring non volatile regs
https://git.kernel.org/powerpc/c/a85c728cb5e12216c19ae5878980c2cbbbf8616d
cheers