* Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Dave Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 05/28/2015 08:01 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> But the real question is: can we support in-use MPX with asynchronous lazy
> >> restore, while it's still semantically correct? I don't think so, unless
> >> you add
> >> MPX specific synchronous restore to the context switch path, which isn't
> >> such a
> >> good idea IMHO.
> >
> > Right now, we assume that the first use of the FPU gets an #ND exception to
> > tell us that someone is using the FPU. MPX doesn't generate #ND, thus the
> > need to do it eagerly.
Basically MPX is not really a vector operation, it just uses the xstate (as in
'extended CPU state') context area to do easy saves/restores on context
switches.
MPX is an MMU-ish feature.
That's an entirely sensible design approach, which reduces the support code
needed
for MPX, and it's not surprising that MPX accesses were not made conditional on
CR0::TS.
> > On CPUs that support it we could, instead, do an xgetbv during the context
> > switch to ensure that all things having an xstate/xfeature but that do not
> > generate #ND exceptions are in their init state. If they are not in their
> > init state, we exit lazy mode.
Yeah, no, we don't need to do anything complex here.
This property is something we know when MPX gets enabled, so for MPX tasks we
should either simply set _TIF_WORK_CTXSW and let __switch_to_xtra() handle it,
or
should slightly modify the eagerfpu choice code to always do eager restores
when
switching to an MPX task.
Nothing complex is needed to support the mixed lazy/eager model, the current
FPU
code handles it just fine, because it's already a mixed lazy/eager model :-)
> > We could theoretically use the same kind of thing with the compacted xsave
> > format to ensure that we only allocate enough space for what we *need* in
> > the
> > xsave buffer and not allocate for the worst-case. AVX512 has 32x512-bit
> > registers (2kbytes) and it would be a bit of a shame to need to allocate
> > ~3k
> > of space.
>
> I understand the point of this type of optimization (except that I really
> don't
> like the idea of sending SIGBUS or whatever if we fail an allocation at
> context
> switch time), but why are we even considering trying to support MPX and lazy
> fpu
> at the same time? Judging from all the bug reports, it seems like it's a
> giant
> mess, and the code to support lazy restore is not exactly pretty.
>
> I would propose that we take the opposite approach and just ban eagerfpu=off
> when MPX is enabled. We could then take the next step and default
> eagerfpu=on
> for everyone and, if nothing breaks, then just delete lazy mode entirely.
>
> I suspect we'd have to go back to Pentium 3 or earlier to find a CPU on which
> lazy mode is actually a good idea. Fiddling with CR0 and handling exceptions
> is
> really slow, and I think we should trust CPUs with XSAVEOPT support to do
> their
> job and let the older CPUs take the small performance hit, if it even is a
> performance hit.
It's not that simple, because the decision is not 'lazy versus eager', but
'mixed
lazy/eager versus eager-only':
Even on modern machines, if a task is not using the FPU (it's doing integer
only
work, with short sleeps just shuffling around requests, etc.) then context
switches get up to 5-10% faster with lazy FPU restores.
So we have this dynamic measurement code in place in the lazy case that
opportunistically enables eagerfpu handling on a per task basis, and that
method
works pretty efficiently and has a good hit rate in isolating FPU-users from
integer-users.
So it's not 'lazy restores versus eager restores', but:
- optimized, mixed lazy and eager use
vs.
- eager-only use
Which is a lot less clear-cut choice.
It's true that right now we forcibly use eagerfpu on all modern CPUs (XSAVE
supporting ones - in essence modern Intel CPUs) which hides all this - but if
you
re-enable it it's measurable even on Intel systems. On AMD systems it's the
current state of affairs right now.
Also, I'd like to point out that the FPU code is a lot less of a mess in the
latest x86/fpu tree! ;-)
I'd not give up on lazy restores just yet - or at least not without much better
measurements backing it all up...
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
