On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 02:24:04PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 02:31:26PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > > Modify __down_read_trylock() to make it generate slightly better code > > (smaller and maybe a tiny bit faster). > > > > Before this patch, down_read_trylock: > > > > 0x0000000000000000 <+0>: callq 0x5 <down_read_trylock+5> > > 0x0000000000000005 <+5>: jmp 0x18 <down_read_trylock+24> > > 0x0000000000000007 <+7>: lea 0x1(%rdx),%rcx > > 0x000000000000000b <+11>: mov %rdx,%rax > > 0x000000000000000e <+14>: lock cmpxchg %rcx,(%rdi) > > 0x0000000000000013 <+19>: cmp %rax,%rdx > > 0x0000000000000016 <+22>: je 0x23 <down_read_trylock+35> > > 0x0000000000000018 <+24>: mov (%rdi),%rdx > > 0x000000000000001b <+27>: test %rdx,%rdx > > 0x000000000000001e <+30>: jns 0x7 <down_read_trylock+7> > > 0x0000000000000020 <+32>: xor %eax,%eax > > 0x0000000000000022 <+34>: retq > > 0x0000000000000023 <+35>: mov %gs:0x0,%rax > > 0x000000000000002c <+44>: or $0x3,%rax > > 0x0000000000000030 <+48>: mov %rax,0x20(%rdi) > > 0x0000000000000034 <+52>: mov $0x1,%eax > > 0x0000000000000039 <+57>: retq > > > > After patch, down_read_trylock: > > > > 0x0000000000000000 <+0>: callq 0x5 <down_read_trylock+5> > > 0x0000000000000005 <+5>: mov (%rdi),%rax > > 0x0000000000000008 <+8>: test %rax,%rax > > 0x000000000000000b <+11>: js 0x2f <down_read_trylock+47> > > 0x000000000000000d <+13>: lea 0x1(%rax),%rdx > > 0x0000000000000011 <+17>: lock cmpxchg %rdx,(%rdi) > > 0x0000000000000016 <+22>: jne 0x8 <down_read_trylock+8> > > 0x0000000000000018 <+24>: mov %gs:0x0,%rax > > 0x0000000000000021 <+33>: or $0x3,%rax > > 0x0000000000000025 <+37>: mov %rax,0x20(%rdi) > > 0x0000000000000029 <+41>: mov $0x1,%eax > > 0x000000000000002e <+46>: retq > > 0x000000000000002f <+47>: xor %eax,%eax > > 0x0000000000000031 <+49>: retq > > > > By using a rwsem microbenchmark, the down_read_trylock() rate on a > > x86-64 system before and after the patch were: > > > > Before Patch After Patch > > # of Threads rlock rlock > > ------------ ----- ----- > > 1 27,787 28,259 > > 2 8,359 9,234 > > From 1/2: > > 1 29,201 30,143 29,458 28,615 30,172 29,201 > 2 6,807 13,299 1,171 7,725 15,025 1,804 Argh, fat fingered and send before I was done typing. What I wanted to say was; those rlock numbers don't match up. What gives? The before _this_ patch number of 27k787 should be the same as the after first patch number of 30k172.
