Re: x86 - cpu_relax - why nop vs. pause?

[Michael Breuer]

On 02/07/2010 03:08 PM, Michael Breuer wrote:
> On 2/7/2010 1:14 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> , and this got me thinking... and testing... I think there's an 
> optimization issue with gcc:
>
> First of all - a bit of background on how I got here:
>
> After reading the Intel documentation, I tried replacing rep:nop with 
> pause (in theory exactly what's shown above). The system hung on booting.
> I then tried replacing nop with pause (rep:pause) and the system 
> booted. Using the above example, the opcode becomes f3 f3 90 vs f3 90 
> (rep nop).
>
> Given the above compiler test case, this seemed odd, to say the least. 
> So I played a bit more with gcc. Seems that the optimizer (-O3) is 
> handling the *three*cases differently (objdump output)
>
> Base code for all three cases (only change is the asm volitile line as 
> shown for each case):
>
> static inline void pause(void)
> {
>         asm volatile("pause" ::: "memory");
> }
>
> void main(void)
> {
>     pause();
> }
>
> Case1 - asm volatile("pause" ::: "memory");
> 0000000000400480 <main>:
>   400480:    f3 90                    pause
>   400482:    c3                       retq
>   400483:    90                       nop
>
> Case2 - asm volitile("rep;nop" ::: "memory") Note: this didn't inline!
>
> 0000000000400474 <pause>:
>   400474:    55                       push   %rbp
>   400475:    48 89 e5                 mov    %rsp,%rbp
>   400478:    f3 90                    pause
>   40047a:    c9                       leaveq
>   40047b:    c3                       retq
>
> 000000000040047c <main>:
>   40047c:    55                       push   %rbp
>   40047d:    48 89 e5                 mov    %rsp,%rbp
>   400480:    e8 ef ff ff ff           callq  400474 <pause>
>   400485:    c9                       leaveq
>   400486:    c3                       retq
>   400487:    90                       nop
>   400488:    90                       nop
>   400489:    90                       nop
>   40048a:    90                       nop
>   40048b:    90                       nop
>   40048c:    90                       nop
>   40048d:    90                       nop
>   40048e:    90                       nop
>   40048f:    90                       nop
>
> Case3 - asm volitile("rep;pause" ::: "memory")
> 0000000000400480 <main>:
>   400480:    f3 f3 90                 pause
>   400483:    c3                       retq
>   400484:    90                       nop
> _______
> Note the difference between opcodes case 1 and case 3, and the mess 
> made by the compiler in case 2.
>
> As to benchmarks  - I've checked a few things, no formal or lasting 
> stuff... but striking at first glance:
>
> 1) At idle, perf top shows time spent in _raw_spin_lock dropping from 
> ~35% to ~25%.
> 2) Running a media transcode (single core - handbrakecli): frame rate 
> increased by about 5-10%.
> 3) During file-intensive operations (#2, above, or copying large files 
> - ext4 on software raid6) - latencytop shows a decerase on writing a 
> page to disc from about 120ms to about 90ms.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
> linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Disregard case 2 - was missing -O3. With -O3 or -O2 rep;nop and pause 
are identical. The interesting case is rep;pause which is different and 
seems more efficient.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/