From: Jann Horn <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[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 22:01:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAG48ez3W+dkCerwioHNiZCWKJkuf9aL1s6SxN8X=yJ=JbGMB9Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
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".
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-30 21:02 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 [this message]
2024-10-30 21:04 ` Jens Axboe
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 \
--in-reply-to='CAG48ez3W+dkCerwioHNiZCWKJkuf9aL1s6SxN8X=yJ=JbGMB9Q@mail.gmail.com' \
[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