Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 6 Sep 2018 13:55:17 -0700
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, jbaron@akamai.com,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 0/2] fs/epoll: loosen irq safety when possible
Message-ID: <20180906205517.GC31080@linux-r8p5>
References: <20180720172956.2883-1-dave@stgolabs.net>
 <20180720124212.7260d76d83e2b8e5e3349ea5@linux-foundation.org>
 <20180720200559.27nc7j2rrxpy5p3n@linux-r8p5>
 <20180906191140.GA4816@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180906191140.GA4816@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 06 Sep 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

>On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 01:05:59PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2018, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>> >I'm surprised.  Is spin_lock_irqsave() significantly more expensive
>> >than spin_lock_irq()?  Relative to all the other stuff those functions
>> >are doing?  If so, how come?  Some architectural thing makes
>> >local_irq_save() much more costly than local_irq_disable()?
>>
>> For example, if you compare x86 native_restore_fl() to xen_restore_fl(),
>> the cost of Xen is much higher.
>
>Xen is a moot argument. IIRC the point is that POPF (as used by
>*irqrestore()) is a very expensive operation because it changes all
>flags and thus has very 'difficult' instruction dependencies, killing
>the front end reorder and generating a giant bubble in the pipeline.
>
>Similarly, I suppose PUSHF is an expensive instruction because it needs
>all the flags 'stable' and thus needs to wait for a fair number of prior
>instructions to retire before it can get on with it.
>
>Combined the whole PUSHF + POPF is _far_ more expensive than STI + CLI,
>because the latter only has dependencies on instructions that muck about
>with IF -- not that many.

ack.

In fact it turns out that my Xen numbers for this patch were actually
native (popf), and not the xen_restore_fl() as it was using hvm and
not paravirt.

Thanks,
Davidlohr