[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH 4/5] x86/pv: Optimise to the segment context switching paths
On 09.09.2020 11:59, Andrew Cooper wrote: > Save the segment selectors with explicit asm, rather than with read_sreg(). > This permits the use of MOV's m16 encoding, which avoids indirecting the > selector value through a register. Instead of this, how about making read_sreg() look like #define read_sreg(val, name) ({ \ if ( sizeof(val) == 2 ) \ asm volatile ( "mov %%" STR(name) ",%0" : "=m" (val) ); \ else \ asm volatile ( "mov %%" STR(name) ",%k0" : "=r" (val) ); \ }) which then also covers read_registers()? I have a full patch ready to send, if you agree. > For {save,load}_segments(), opencode the fs/gs helpers, as the optimiser is > unable to rearrange the logic down to a single X86_CR4_FSGSBASE check. This > removes several jumps and creates bigger basic blocks. > > In load_segments(), optimise GS base handling substantially. The call to > svm_load_segs() already needs gsb/gss the correct way around, so hoist the > logic for the later path to use it as well. Swapping the inputs in GPRs is > far more efficient than using SWAPGS. > > Previously, there was optionally one SWAPGS from the user/kernel mode check, > two SWAPGS's in write_gs_shadow() and two WRGSBASE's. Updates to GS (4 or 5 > here) in quick succession stall all contemporary pipelines repeatedly. (Intel > Core/Xeon pipelines have segment register renaming[1], so can continue to > speculatively execute with one GS update in flight. Other pipelines cannot > have two updates in flight concurrently, and must stall dispatch of the second > until the first has retired.) > > Rewrite the logic to have exactly two WRGSBASEs and one SWAPGS, which removes > two stalles all contemporary processors. > > Although modest, the resulting delta is: > > add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 0/2 up/down: 0/-106 (-106) > Function old new delta > paravirt_ctxt_switch_from 235 198 -37 > context_switch 3582 3513 -69 > > in a common path. > > [1] > https://software.intel.com/security-software-guidance/insights/deep-dive-intel-analysis-speculative-behavior-swapgs-and-segment-registers > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> Preferably re-based onto said change, and maybe with another adjustment (see below) Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> > @@ -1556,18 +1557,24 @@ static void load_segments(struct vcpu *n) > : [ok] "+r" (all_segs_okay) \ > : [_val] "rm" (val) ) > > -#ifdef CONFIG_HVM > - if ( cpu_has_svm && !compat && (uregs->fs | uregs->gs) <= 3 ) > + if ( !compat ) > { > - unsigned long gsb = n->arch.flags & TF_kernel_mode > - ? n->arch.pv.gs_base_kernel : n->arch.pv.gs_base_user; > - unsigned long gss = n->arch.flags & TF_kernel_mode > - ? n->arch.pv.gs_base_user : n->arch.pv.gs_base_kernel; > + gsb = n->arch.pv.gs_base_kernel; > + gss = n->arch.pv.gs_base_user; > + > + /* > + * Figure out which way around gsb/gss want to be. gsb needs to be > + * the active context, and gss needs to be the inactive context. > + */ > + if ( !(n->arch.flags & TF_kernel_mode) ) > + SWAP(gsb, gss); > > - fs_gs_done = svm_load_segs(n->arch.pv.ldt_ents, LDT_VIRT_START(n), > - n->arch.pv.fs_base, gsb, gss); > + if ( IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HVM) && cpu_has_svm && The change from #ifdef to IS_ENABLED() wants mirroring to the prefetching site imo. I wonder though whether the adjustment is a good idea: The declaration lives in svm.h, and I would view it as quite reasonable for that header to not get included in !HVM builds (there may be a lot of disentangling to do to get there, but still). Jan
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |