public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Jann Horn <[email protected]>, Robin Murphy <[email protected]>,
	Mark Rutland <[email protected]>,
	Will Deacon <[email protected]>,
	Catalin Marinas <[email protected]>
Cc: io-uring <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] io_uring/rsrc: add last-lookup cache hit to io_rsrc_node_lookup()
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 15:04:19 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAG48ez3W+dkCerwioHNiZCWKJkuf9aL1s6SxN8X=yJ=JbGMB9Q@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/30/24 3:01 PM, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 9:25?PM Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 10/30/24 11:20 AM, Jann Horn wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 5:58?PM Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> This avoids array_index_nospec() for repeated lookups on the same node,
>>>> which can be quite common (and costly). If a cached node is removed from
>>>
>>> You're saying array_index_nospec() can be quite costly - which
>>> architecture is this on? Is this the cost of the compare+subtract+and
>>> making the critical path longer?
>>
>> Tested this on arm64, in a vm to be specific. Let me try and generate
>> some numbers/profiles on x86-64 as well. It's noticeable there as well,
>> though not quite as bad as the below example. For arm64, with the patch,
>> we get roughly 8.7% of the time spent getting a resource - without it's
>> 66% of the time. This is just doing a microbenchmark, but it clearly
>> shows that anything following the barrier on arm64 is very costly:
>>
>>   0.98 ?       ldr   x21, [x0, #96]
>>        ?     ? tbnz  w2, #1, b8
>>   1.04 ?       ldr   w1, [x21, #144]
>>        ?       cmp   w1, w19
>>        ?     ? b.ls  a0
>>        ? 30:   mov   w1, w1
>>        ?       sxtw  x0, w19
>>        ?       cmp   x0, x1
>>        ?       ngc   x0, xzr
>>        ?       csdb
>>        ?       ldr   x1, [x21, #160]
>>        ?       and   w19, w19, w0
>>  93.98 ?       ldr   x19, [x1, w19, sxtw #3]
>>
>> and accounts for most of that 66% of the total cost of the micro bench,
>> even though it's doing a ton more stuff than simple getting this node
>> via a lookup.
> 
> Ah, actually... a difference between x86 and arm64 is that arm64 does
> an extra Speculative Data Barrier here, while x86 just does some
> arithmetic. Which I think is to work around "data value predictions",
> in which case my idea of using bitwise AND probably isn't valid.
> 
> https://developer.arm.com/documentation/102816/0205/ section "Software
> Mitigations" says "Such code sequences are based around specific data
> processing operations (for example conditional select or conditional
> move) and a new barrier instruction (CSDB). The combination of both a
> conditional select/conditional move and the new barrier are sufficient
> to address this problem on ALL Arm implementations, both current and
> future".

Yep, see my followup on the x86-64 side too. Don't think it's worth
doing something just because it's expensive on arm64, in fact any kind
of higher frequency array_index_nospec() will be expensive on arm64 :/

-- 
Jens Axboe

      reply	other threads:[~2024-10-30 21:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-10-30 16:58 [PATCH RFC] io_uring/rsrc: add last-lookup cache hit to io_rsrc_node_lookup() Jens Axboe
2024-10-30 17:20 ` Jann Horn
2024-10-30 20:25   ` Jens Axboe
2024-10-30 20:52     ` Jens Axboe
2024-10-30 21:01     ` Jann Horn
2024-10-30 21:04       ` Jens Axboe [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox