MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211101044955.2295495-1-goldstein.w.n@gmail.com>
 <20211117210245.843374-1-goldstein.w.n@gmail.com> <bc0297a1b97a4b129fa3ea1b155f6062@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <CAFUsyfJTuFjVXHMgYi0uggVNW=1WW1uVYa7avVjW5VBb2cmAkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <e41913010e61429bbd2980a5c5ccfb39@AcuMS.aculab.com> <CAFUsyfLUQLj5py1AQ+4NptM6htWxV5i0qxkeXDUdFPfAnqRY2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFUsyfKrGhTHoC+MXiA3zFY-dT0wqPRxoJwMY=+uPbj0p0dDAg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFUsyfKrGhTHoC+MXiA3zFY-dT0wqPRxoJwMY=+uPbj0p0dDAg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Noah Goldstein <goldstein.w.n@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Jan 2022 21:13:09 -0600
Message-ID: <CAFUsyfJQq5n12L-fCsagk5LOqLYXL+3BAORHDCXY-Ud1t2CVDg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] arch/x86: Improve 'rep movs{b|q}' usage in memmove_64.S
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc:     "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>, "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "luto@kernel.org" <luto@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 12:35 PM Noah Goldstein <goldstein.w.n@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 6:05 PM Noah Goldstein <goldstein.w.n@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 4:31 PM David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Noah Goldstein
> > > > Sent: 17 November 2021 22:45
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 4:31 PM David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Noah Goldstein
> > > > > > Sent: 17 November 2021 21:03
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Add check for "short distance movsb" for forwards FSRM usage and
> > > > > > entirely remove backwards 'rep movsq'. Both of these usages hit "slow
> > > > > > modes" that are an order of magnitude slower than usual.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'rep movsb' has some noticeable VERY slow modes that the current
> > > > > > implementation is either 1) not checking for or 2) intentionally
> > > > > > using.
> > > > >
> > > > > How does this relate to the decision that glibc made a few years
> > > > > ago to use backwards 'rep movs' for non-overlapping copies?
> > > >
> > > > GLIBC doesn't use backwards `rep movs`.  Since the regions are
> > > > non-overlapping it just uses forward copy. Backwards `rep movs` is
> > > > from setting the direction flag (`std`) and is a very slow byte
> > > > copy. For overlapping regions where backwards copy is necessary GLIBC
> > > > uses 4x vec copy loop.
> > >
> > > Try to find this commit 6fb8cbcb58a29fff73eb2101b34caa19a7f88eba
> > >
> > > Or follow links from https://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/misc/gcc-semibug.html
> > > But I can't find the actual patch.
> > >
> > > The claims were a massive performance increase for the reverse copy.
> > >
> >
> > I don't think that's referring to optimizations around `rep movs`. It
> > appears to be referring to fallout from this patch:
> > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=6fb8cbcb58a29fff73eb2101b34caa19a7f88eba
> >
> > which broken programs misusing `memcpy` with overlapping regions
> > resulting in this fix:
> > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=0354e355014b7bfda32622e0255399d859862fcd
> >
> > AFAICT support for ERMS was only added around:
> > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=13efa86ece61bf84daca50cab30db1b0902fe2db
> >
> > Either way GLIBC memcpy/memmove moment most certainly does not
> > use backwards `rep movs`:
> > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=sysdeps/x86_64/multiarch/memmove-vec-unaligned-erms.S;hb=HEAD#l655
> >
> > as it is very slow.
> >
> > > The pdf from www.agner.org/optimize may well indicate why some
> > > copies are unexpectedly slow due to cache access aliasing.
> >
> > Even in the `4k` aliasing case `rep movsb` seems to stay within a
> > factor of 2 of optimal whereas the `std` backwards `rep movs` loses
> > by a factor of 10.
> >
> > Either way, `4k` aliasing detection is mostly a concern of `memcpy` as
> > the direction of copy for `memmove` is a correctness question, not
> > an optimization.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I'm pretty sure that Intel cpu (possibly from Ivy bridge onwards)
> > > can be persuaded to copy 8 bytes/clock for in-cache data with
> > > a fairly simple loop that contains 2 reads (maybe misaligned)
> > > and two writes (so 16 bytes per iteration).
> > > Extra unrolling just adds extra code top and bottom.
> > >
> > > You might want a loop like:
> > >         1:      mov     0(%rsi, %rcx),%rax
> > >                 mov     8(%rsi, %rcx),%rdx
> > >                 mov     %rax, 0(%rdi, %rcx)
> > >                 mov     %rdx, 8(%rdi, %rcx)
> > >                 add     $16, %rcx
> > >                 jnz     1b
> > >
> > >         David
> >
> > The backwards loop already has 4x unrolled `movq` loop.
> ping.
ping.
> >
> > >
> > > -
> > > Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> > > Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)