On Sun, 2020-10-25 at 09:49 +0000, David Laight wrote:
> Just looking at a random one of these patches...
>
> Does the compiler manage to optimise that reasonably?
> Or does it generate a lot of shifts and masks as each
> bitfield is set?
>
> The code generation for bitfields is often a lot worse
> that that for |= setting bits in a word.
Indeed, it appears to be utterly appalling. That was one of my
motivations for doing it with masks and shifts in the first place.
Because in ioapic_setup_msg_from_msi(), for example, these two are
consecutive in both source and destination:
entry->vector = msg.arch_data.vector;
entry->delivery_mode = msg.arch_data.delivery_mode;
And so are those:
entry->ir_format = msg.arch_addr_lo.dmar_format;
entry->ir_index_0_14 = msg.arch_addr_lo.dmar_index_0_14;
But GCC 7.5.0 here is doing them all separately...
00000000000011e0 <ioapic_setup_msg_from_msi>:
{
11e0: 53 push %rbx
11e1: 48 89 f3 mov %rsi,%rbx
11e4: 48 83 ec 18 sub $0x18,%rsp
irq_chip_compose_msi_msg(irq_data, &msg);
11e8: 48 89 e6 mov %rsp,%rsi
{
11eb: 65 48 8b 04 25 28 00 mov %gs:0x28,%rax
11f2: 00 00
11f4: 48 89 44 24 10 mov %rax,0x10(%rsp)
11f9: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
irq_chip_compose_msi_msg(irq_data, &msg);
11fb: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 1200 <ioapic_setup_msg_from_msi+0x20>
entry->vector = msg.arch_data.vector;
1200: 0f b6 44 24 08 movzbl 0x8(%rsp),%eax
entry->delivery_mode = msg.arch_data.delivery_mode;
1205: 0f b6 53 01 movzbl 0x1(%rbx),%edx
1209: 0f b6 74 24 09 movzbl 0x9(%rsp),%esi
entry->vector = msg.arch_data.vector;
120e: 88 03 mov %al,(%rbx)
entry->dest_mode_logical = msg.arch_addr_lo.dest_mode_logical;
1210: 0f b6 04 24 movzbl (%rsp),%eax
entry->delivery_mode = msg.arch_data.delivery_mode;
1214: 83 e2 f0 and $0xfffffff0,%edx
1217: 83 e6 07 and $0x7,%esi
entry->dest_mode_logical = msg.arch_addr_lo.dest_mode_logical;
121a: 09 f2 or %esi,%edx
121c: 8d 0c 00 lea (%rax,%rax,1),%ecx
entry->ir_format = msg.arch_addr_lo.dmar_format;
121f: c0 e8 04 shr $0x4,%al
entry->dest_mode_logical = msg.arch_addr_lo.dest_mode_logical;
1222: 83 e1 08 and $0x8,%ecx
1225: 09 ca or %ecx,%edx
1227: 88 53 01 mov %dl,0x1(%rbx)
entry->ir_format = msg.arch_addr_lo.dmar_format;
122a: 89 c2 mov %eax,%edx
entry->ir_index_0_14 = msg.arch_addr_lo.dmar_index_0_14;
122c: 8b 04 24 mov (%rsp),%eax
122f: 83 e2 01 and $0x1,%edx
1232: c1 e8 05 shr $0x5,%eax
1235: 66 25 ff 7f and $0x7fff,%ax
1239: 8d 0c 00 lea (%rax,%rax,1),%ecx
123c: 66 c1 e8 07 shr $0x7,%ax
1240: 88 43 07 mov %al,0x7(%rbx)
1243: 09 ca or %ecx,%edx
}
1245: 48 8b 44 24 10 mov 0x10(%rsp),%rax
124a: 65 48 33 04 25 28 00 xor %gs:0x28,%rax
1251: 00 00
entry->ir_index_0_14 = msg.arch_addr_lo.dmar_index_0_14;
1253: 88 53 06 mov %dl,0x6(%rbx)
}
1256: 75 06 jne 125e <ioapic_setup_msg_from_msi+0x7e>
1258: 48 83 c4 18 add $0x18,%rsp
125c: 5b pop %rbx
125d: c3 retq
125e: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 1263 <ioapic_setup_msg_from_msi+0x83>
1263: 0f 1f 00 nopl (%rax)
1266: 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 nopw %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
126d: 00 00 00
Still, this isn't really a fast path so I'm content to file the GCC PR
for the really *obvious* misses and let it take its course.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
