> Am 29.10.2015 um 16:08 schrieb Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com>:
>
> We currently do some magic shifting (by exploiting that exit codes
> are always a multiple of 4) and a table lookup to jump into the
> exit handlers. This causes some calculations and checks, just to
> do an potentially expensive function call.
>
> Changing that to a switch statement gives the compiler the chance
> to inline and dynamically decide between jump tables or inline
> compare and branches. In addition it makes the code more readable.
>
> bloat-o-meter gives me a small reduction in code size:
>
> add/remove: 0/7 grow/shrink: 1/1 up/down: 986/-1334 (-348)
> function old new delta
> kvm_handle_sie_intercept 72 1058 +986
> handle_prog 704 696 -8
> handle_noop 54 - -54
> handle_partial_execution 60 - -60
> intercept_funcs 120 - -120
> handle_instruction 198 - -198
> handle_validity 210 - -210
> handle_stop 316 - -316
> handle_external_interrupt 368 - -368
>
> Right now my gcc does conditional branches instead of jump tables.
> The inlining seems to give us enough cycles as some micro-benchmarking
> shows minimal improvements, but still in noise.
Awesome. I ended up with the same conclusions on switch vs table lookups in the
ppc code back in the day.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.h...@de.ibm.com>
> ---
> arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c b/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c
> index 7365e8a..b4a5aa1 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c
> @@ -336,28 +336,28 @@ static int handle_partial_execution(struct kvm_vcpu
> *vcpu)
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> }
>
> -static const intercept_handler_t intercept_funcs[] = {
> - [0x00 >> 2] = handle_noop,
> - [0x04 >> 2] = handle_instruction,
> - [0x08 >> 2] = handle_prog,
> - [0x10 >> 2] = handle_noop,
> - [0x14 >> 2] = handle_external_interrupt,
> - [0x18 >> 2] = handle_noop,
> - [0x1C >> 2] = kvm_s390_handle_wait,
> - [0x20 >> 2] = handle_validity,
> - [0x28 >> 2] = handle_stop,
> - [0x38 >> 2] = handle_partial_execution,
> -};
> -
> int kvm_handle_sie_intercept(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> - intercept_handler_t func;
> - u8 code = vcpu->arch.sie_block->icptcode;
> -
> - if (code & 3 || (code >> 2) >= ARRAY_SIZE(intercept_funcs))
> + switch (vcpu->arch.sie_block->icptcode) {
> + case 0x00:
> + case 0x10:
> + case 0x18:
... if you could convert these magic numbers to something more telling however,
I think readability would improve even more! That can easily be a follow up
patch though.
Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
