Re: [PATCH][RFC] Implement arch primitives for busywait loops

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 22:06:35 +1000
Nicholas Piggin [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:57:37 +0000
David Laight [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

From: Nicholas Piggin  

quoted

Sent: 16 September 2016 12:52
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:30:58 +0000
David Laight [off-list ref] wrote:
    

quoted

From: Nicholas Piggin    

quoted

Sent: 16 September 2016 09:58
Implementing busy wait loops with cpu_relax() in callers poses
some difficulties for powerpc.

First, we want to put our SMT thread into a low priority mode for the
duration of the loop, but then return to normal priority after exiting
the loop.  Dependong on the CPU design, 'HMT_low() ; HMT_medium();' as
cpu_relax() does may have HMT_medium take effect before HMT_low made
any (or much) difference.

Second, it can be beneficial for some implementations to spin on the
exit condition with a statically predicted-not-taken branch (i.e.,
always predict the loop will exit).

This is a quick RFC with a couple of users converted to see what
people think. I don't use a C branch with hints, because we don't want
the compiler moving the loop body out of line, which makes it a bit
messy unfortunately. If there's a better way to do it, I'm all ears.    

I think it will still all go wrong if the conditional isn't trivial.
In particular if the condition contains || or && it is likely to
have a branch - which could invert the loop.    

I don't know that it will.

Yes, if we have exit condition that requires more branches in order to
be computed then we lose our nice property of never taking a branch
miss on loop exit. But we still avoid *this* branch miss, and still
prevent multiple iterations of the wait loop being speculatively
executed concurrently when there's no work to be done.

And C doesn't know about the loop, so it can't do any transformation
except to compute the final condition.

Or have I missed something?    

Try putting the code inside a conditional or at the bottom of a loop.
gcc can replicate code to remove a branch.

So:
	for (;;) {
		a;
		if (b)
			c;
		d;
	}  

That's not what this patch does though. The loop is purely asm. gcc has
no idea about it. Only thing gcc knows is to evaluate the condition and
put it in a register.

Oh you're right course -- can't branch to random location. Sorry, I didn't
know what you meant at first. It does need to use asm goto I guess.

Thanks,
Nick