[RFC 2/2] powerpc: copy_4K_page tweaked for Cell - add CPU feature

[Mark Nelson]

Hi Michael,

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:51:35 pm Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 16:18 +1000, Mark Nelson wrote:
> > Add a new CPU feature, CPU_FTR_CP_USE_DCBTZ, to be added to the CPUs that benefit
> > from having dcbt and dcbz instructions used in copy_4K_page(). So far Cell, PPC970
> > and Power4 benefit.
> > 
> > This way all the other 64bit powerpc chips will have the whole prefetching loop
> > nop'ed out.
> 
> > Index: upstream/arch/powerpc/lib/copypage_64.S
> > ===================================================================
> > --- upstream.orig/arch/powerpc/lib/copypage_64.S
> > +++ upstream/arch/powerpc/lib/copypage_64.S
> > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ PPC64_CACHES:
> >  
> >  _GLOBAL(copy_4K_page)
> >  	li	r5,4096		/* 4K page size */
> > +BEGIN_FTR_SECTION
> >  	ld      r10,PPC64_CACHES at toc(r2)
> >  	lwz	r11,DCACHEL1LOGLINESIZE(r10)	/* log2 of cache line size */
> >  	lwz     r12,DCACHEL1LINESIZE(r10)	/* Get cache line size */
> > @@ -30,7 +31,7 @@ setup:
> >  	dcbz	r9,r3
> >  	add	r9,r9,r12
> >  	bdnz	setup
> > -
> > +END_FTR_SECTION_IFSET(CPU_FTR_CP_USE_DCBTZ)
> >  	addi	r3,r3,-8
> >  	srdi    r8,r5,7		/* page is copied in 128 byte strides */
> >  	addi	r8,r8,-1	/* one stride copied outside loop */
> 
> Instead of nop'ing it out, we could use an alternative feature section
> to either run it or jump over it. It would look something like:
> 
> 
> _GLOBAL(copy_4K_page)
> BEGIN_FTR_SECTION
>         li      r5,4096         /* 4K page size */
>         ld      r10,PPC64_CACHES at toc(r2)
>         lwz     r11,DCACHEL1LOGLINESIZE(r10)    /* log2 of cache line size */
>         lwz     r12,DCACHEL1LINESIZE(r10)       /* Get cache line size */
>         li      r9,0
>         srd     r8,r5,r11
> 
>         mtctr   r8
> setup:
>         dcbt    r9,r4
>         dcbz    r9,r3
>         add     r9,r9,r12
>         bdnz    setup
> FTR_SECTION_ELSE
> 	b	1f
> ALT_FTR_SECTION_END_IFSET(CPU_FTR_CP_USE_DCBTZ)
> 1:
>         addi    r3,r3,-8
> 
> So in the no-dcbtz case you'd get a branch instead of 11 nops.
> 
> Of course you'd need to benchmark it to see if skipping the nops is
> better than executing them ;P

Thanks for looking through this.

That does look a lot better. In the first version there wasn't quite
as much to nop out (the cache line size was hardcoded to 128
bytes) so I wasn't so worried but I'll definitely try this with an
alternative section like you describe.

The jump probably will turn out to be better because I'd imagine
that the same chips that don't need the dcbt and dcbz because
they've got beefy enough hardware prefetchers also won't be
disturbed by the jump (but benchmarks tomorrow will confirm;
or prove me wrong :) )

Thanks!

Mark