[PATCH v4 3/4] powerpc/64: add 32 bytes prechecking before using VMX optimization on memcmp()

[Simon Guo]

Hi Michael,
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 12:13:52AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> wei.guo.simon at gmail.com writes:
> > From: Simon Guo <wei.guo.simon at gmail.com>
> >
> > This patch is based on the previous VMX patch on memcmp().
> >
> > To optimize ppc64 memcmp() with VMX instruction, we need to think about
> > the VMX penalty brought with: If kernel uses VMX instruction, it needs
> > to save/restore current thread's VMX registers. There are 32 x 128 bits
> > VMX registers in PPC, which means 32 x 16 = 512 bytes for load and store.
> >
> > The major concern regarding the memcmp() performance in kernel is KSM,
> > who will use memcmp() frequently to merge identical pages. So it will
> > make sense to take some measures/enhancement on KSM to see whether any
> > improvement can be done here.  Cyril Bur indicates that the memcmp() for
> > KSM has a higher possibility to fail (unmatch) early in previous bytes
> > in following mail.
> > 	https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/817322/#1773629
> > And I am taking a follow-up on this with this patch.
> >
> > Per some testing, it shows KSM memcmp() will fail early at previous 32
> > bytes.  More specifically:
> >     - 76% cases will fail/unmatch before 16 bytes;
> >     - 83% cases will fail/unmatch before 32 bytes;
> >     - 84% cases will fail/unmatch before 64 bytes;
> > So 32 bytes looks a better choice than other bytes for pre-checking.
> >
> > This patch adds a 32 bytes pre-checking firstly before jumping into VMX
> > operations, to avoid the unnecessary VMX penalty. And the testing shows
> > ~20% improvement on memcmp() average execution time with this patch.
> >
> > The detail data and analysis is at:
> > https://github.com/justdoitqd/publicFiles/blob/master/memcmp/README.md
> >
> > Any suggestion is welcome.
> 
> Thanks for digging into that, really great work.
> 
> I'm inclined to make this not depend on KSM though. It seems like a good
> optimisation to do in general.
> 
> So can we just call it the 'pre-check' or something, and always do it?
> 
Sound reasonable to me.
I will expand the change to .Ldiffoffset_vmx_cmp case and test accordingly.

Thanks,
- Simon