[PATCH] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: book3s_hv_nested.c: improve branch prediction for k.alloc

[Kautuk Consul]

Sorry, last email rejected by the mailing lists.
Can you please look at the diff file attach ?

On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 2:14 PM Kautuk Consul
<kautuk.consul.80 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Sorry Im replying back using my private gmail ID as I can't figure out
> how to attach multiple files using mutt.
>
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 12:05 PM Michael Ellerman <mpe at ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> >
> > Kautuk Consul <kconsul at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> > > On 2023-04-07 09:01:29, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Apr 07, 2023, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > >> > On Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 05:31:47AM -0400, Kautuk Consul wrote:
> > >> > > I used the unlikely() macro on the return values of the k.alloc
> > >> > > calls and found that it changes the code generation a bit.
> > >> > > Optimize all return paths of k.alloc calls by improving
> > >> > > branch prediction on return value of k.alloc.
> > >>
> > >> Nit, this is improving code generation, not branch prediction.
> > > Sorry my mistake.
> > >>
> > >> > What about below?
> > >> >
> > >> > "Improve branch prediction on kmalloc() and kzalloc() call by using
> > >> > unlikely() macro to optimize their return paths."
> > >>
> > >> Another nit, using unlikely() doesn't necessarily provide a measurable optimization.
> > >> As above, it does often improve code generation for the happy path, but that doesn't
> > >> always equate to improved performance, e.g. if the CPU can easily predict the branch
> > >> and/or there is no impact on the cache footprint.
> >
> > > I see. I will submit a v2 of the patch with a better and more accurate
> > > description. Does anyone else have any comments before I do so ?
> >
> > In general I think unlikely should be saved for cases where either the
> > compiler is generating terrible code, or the likelyness of the condition
> > might be surprising to a human reader.
> >
> > eg. if you had some code that does a NULL check and it's *expected* that
> > the value is NULL, then wrapping that check in likely() actually adds
> > information for a human reader.
> >
> > Also please don't use unlikely in init paths or other cold paths, it
> > clutters the code (only slightly but a little) and that's not worth the
> > possible tiny benefit for code that only runs once or infrequently.
> >
> > I would expect the compilers to do the right thing in all
> > these cases without the unlikely. But if you can demonstrate that they
> > meaningfully improve the code generation with a before/after
> > dissassembly then I'd be interested.
> >
> There are surprisingly many changes to code generation before and
> after using these
> instances of the unlikely macro. I couldn't really analyze all of them
> to be able to state
> that they are indeed improving performance in some way. I assumed the compiler
> would generate optimal code for these unlikely paths.
> Please find the before and after file attached to this email.
>
> > cheers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: diff
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1260592 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/attachments/20230411/79a5e6b2/attachment-0001.obj>