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

Kautuk Consul kconsul at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Wed Apr 12 17:04:13 AEST 2023


On 2023-04-11 16:35:10, Michael Ellerman 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.
Just FYI, the last email by kautuk.consul.80 at gmail.com was by me.
That last email contains a diff file attachment which compares 2 files:
before my changes and after my changes.
This diff file shows a lot of changes in code generation. Im assuming
all those changes are made by the compiler towards optimizing all return
paths to k.alloc calls.
Kindly review and comment.
> cheers

More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list