Mailing List Archive: [PATCH] xen/vpci: Improve code generation in mask

[PATCH] xen/vpci: Improve code generation in mask_write()

Mar 15, 2024, 5:13 AM

Post #1 of 4 (24 views)

The use of __clear_bit() forces dmask to be spilled to the stack, and
interferes with the compiler heuristcs for some upcoming improvements to the
ffs() code generation.

First, shrink dmask to just the active vectors by making out the upper bits.
This replaces the "i < msi->vectors" part of the loop condition.

Next, use a simple while() loop with "clear bottom bit" expressed in plane C,
which affords the optimiser a far better understanding of what the loop is
doing.

Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
---
CC: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>

Noticed when looking at the ffs() code gen improvements.

Any suggestion on how to test this? test_vcpi doesn't seem to check anything
here. I think I've got the boundary conditions for msi->vectors right, but
I'd be lying if I said I was certain...

bloat-o-meter reports:

add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 0/1 up/down: 0/-28 (-28)
Function old new delta
mask_write 142 114 -28

which is a consequence of the compiler having a much better idea of what's
going on in the loop. There's more to come with the ffs() improvements too.
---
xen/drivers/vpci/msi.c | 10 ++++++----
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/xen/drivers/vpci/msi.c b/xen/drivers/vpci/msi.c
index d3aa5df08941..30adcf7df05d 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/vpci/msi.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/vpci/msi.c
@@ -169,13 +169,15 @@ static void cf_check mask_write(

if ( msi->enabled )
{
- unsigned int i;
+ /* Skip changes to vectors which aren't enabled. */
+ dmask &= (~0U >> (32 - msi->vectors));

- for ( i = ffs(dmask) - 1; dmask && i < msi->vectors;
- i = ffs(dmask) - 1 )
+ while ( dmask )
{
+ unsigned int i = ffs(dmask) - 1;
+
vpci_msi_arch_mask(msi, pdev, i, (val >> i) & 1);
- __clear_bit(i, &dmask);
+ dmask &= (dmask - 1);
}
}

base-commit: d638e304f13a5ef7d125de5ace5f7828a7b25bac
--
2.30.2

Re: [PATCH] xen/vpci: Improve code generation in mask_write() [ In reply to ]

roger.pau at citrix

Mar 15, 2024, 8:13 AM

Post #2 of 4 (24 views)

Permalink

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 12:13:22PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> The use of __clear_bit() forces dmask to be spilled to the stack, and
> interferes with the compiler heuristcs for some upcoming improvements to the
> ffs() code generation.
>
> First, shrink dmask to just the active vectors by making out the upper bits.
> This replaces the "i < msi->vectors" part of the loop condition.
>
> Next, use a simple while() loop with "clear bottom bit" expressed in plane C,
> which affords the optimiser a far better understanding of what the loop is
> doing.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
> ---
> CC: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>
>
> Noticed when looking at the ffs() code gen improvements.
>
> Any suggestion on how to test this? test_vcpi doesn't seem to check anything
> here. I think I've got the boundary conditions for msi->vectors right, but
> I'd be lying if I said I was certain...

There's no easy way to test this because it relies on having a PCI
device underneath. test_vpci just checks the logic to add & remove
handlers, but doesn't get remotely close as to attempting to provide
some kind of dummy environment for pass through to be sanity tested.

I should look into it.

>
> bloat-o-meter reports:
>
> add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 0/1 up/down: 0/-28 (-28)
> Function old new delta
> mask_write 142 114 -28
>
> which is a consequence of the compiler having a much better idea of what's
> going on in the loop. There's more to come with the ffs() improvements too.
> ---
> xen/drivers/vpci/msi.c | 10 ++++++----
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/xen/drivers/vpci/msi.c b/xen/drivers/vpci/msi.c
> index d3aa5df08941..30adcf7df05d 100644
> --- a/xen/drivers/vpci/msi.c
> +++ b/xen/drivers/vpci/msi.c
> @@ -169,13 +169,15 @@ static void cf_check mask_write(
>
> if ( msi->enabled )
> {
> - unsigned int i;
> + /* Skip changes to vectors which aren't enabled. */
> + dmask &= (~0U >> (32 - msi->vectors));

Do we need to ASSERT that msi->vectors <= 32 in order to avoid
theoretical UB?

Thanks, Roger.

Re: [PATCH] xen/vpci: Improve code generation in mask_write() [ In reply to ]

andrew.cooper3 at citrix

Mar 15, 2024, 9:19 AM

Post #3 of 4 (24 views)

Permalink

On 15/03/2024 3:13 pm, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 12:13:22PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> The use of __clear_bit() forces dmask to be spilled to the stack, and
>> interferes with the compiler heuristcs for some upcoming improvements to the
>> ffs() code generation.
>>
>> First, shrink dmask to just the active vectors by making out the upper bits.
>> This replaces the "i < msi->vectors" part of the loop condition.
>>
>> Next, use a simple while() loop with "clear bottom bit" expressed in plane C,
>> which affords the optimiser a far better understanding of what the loop is
>> doing.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
>> ---
>> CC: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>
>>
>> Noticed when looking at the ffs() code gen improvements.
>>
>> Any suggestion on how to test this? test_vcpi doesn't seem to check anything
>> here. I think I've got the boundary conditions for msi->vectors right, but
>> I'd be lying if I said I was certain...
> There's no easy way to test this because it relies on having a PCI
> device underneath. test_vpci just checks the logic to add & remove
> handlers, but doesn't get remotely close as to attempting to provide
> some kind of dummy environment for pass through to be sanity tested.
>
> I should look into it.
>
>> bloat-o-meter reports:
>>
>> add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 0/1 up/down: 0/-28 (-28)
>> Function old new delta
>> mask_write 142 114 -28
>>
>> which is a consequence of the compiler having a much better idea of what's
>> going on in the loop. There's more to come with the ffs() improvements too.
>> ---
>> xen/drivers/vpci/msi.c | 10 ++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/xen/drivers/vpci/msi.c b/xen/drivers/vpci/msi.c
>> index d3aa5df08941..30adcf7df05d 100644
>> --- a/xen/drivers/vpci/msi.c
>> +++ b/xen/drivers/vpci/msi.c
>> @@ -169,13 +169,15 @@ static void cf_check mask_write(
>>
>> if ( msi->enabled )
>> {
>> - unsigned int i;
>> + /* Skip changes to vectors which aren't enabled. */
>> + dmask &= (~0U >> (32 - msi->vectors));
> Do we need to ASSERT that msi->vectors <= 32 in order to avoid
> theoretical UB?

I don't think so. Things have gone catastrophically wrong elsewhere to
get here with 64 or 128.

All this does is stop calling the set-mask callback for disabled vectors.

~Andrew