Re: [PATCH] x86: Add an explicit barrier() to clflushopt()

[Chris Wilson]

On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 01:05:35PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 01/07/16 11:44, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > 
> > Now I feel silly. Looking at the .s, there is no difference with the
> > addition of the barrier to clflush_cache_range(). And sure enough
> > letting the test run for longer, we see a failure. I fell for a placebo.
> > 
> > The failing assertion is always on the last cacheline and is always one
> > value behind. Oh well, back to wondering where we miss the flush.
> > -Chris
> > 
> 
> Could you include the assembly here?

Sure, here you go:

.LHOTB18:
	.p2align 4,,15
	.globl	clflush_cache_range
	.type	clflush_cache_range, @function
clflush_cache_range:
.LFB2505:
	.loc 1 131 0
	.cfi_startproc
.LVL194:
1:	call	__fentry__
	.loc 1 132 0
	movzwl	boot_cpu_data+198(%rip), %eax
	.loc 1 131 0
	pushq	%rbp
	.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
	.cfi_offset 6, -16
	.loc 1 133 0
	movl	%esi, %esi
.LVL195:
	addq	%rdi, %rsi
.LVL196:
	.loc 1 131 0
	movq	%rsp, %rbp
	.cfi_def_cfa_register 6
	.loc 1 132 0
	subl	$1, %eax
	cltq
.LVL197:
	.loc 1 136 0
#APP
# 136 "arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c" 1
	mfence
# 0 "" 2
	.loc 1 138 0
#NO_APP
	notq	%rax
.LVL198:
	andq	%rax, %rdi
.LVL199:
	cmpq	%rdi, %rsi
	jbe	.L216
.L217:
.LBB1741:
.LBB1742:
	.loc 8 198 0
#APP
# 198 "./arch/x86/include/asm/special_insns.h" 1
	661:
	.byte 0x3e; clflush (%rdi)
662:
.skip -(((6651f-6641f)-(662b-661b)) > 0) * ((6651f-6641f)-(662b-661b)),0x90
663:
.pushsection .altinstructions,"a"
 .long 661b - .
 .long 6641f - .
 .word ( 9*32+23)
 .byte 663b-661b
 .byte 6651f-6641f
 .byte 663b-662b
.popsection
.pushsection .altinstr_replacement, "ax"
6641:
	.byte 0x66; clflush (%rdi)
6651:
	.popsection
# 0 "" 2
#NO_APP
.LBE1742:
.LBE1741:
	.loc 1 141 0
	.loc 1 139 0
	movzwl	boot_cpu_data+198(%rip), %eax
	addq	%rax, %rdi
	.loc 1 138 0
	cmpq	%rdi, %rsi
	ja	.L217
.L216:
	.loc 1 144 0
#APP
# 144 "arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c" 1
	mfence
# 0 "" 2
	.loc 1 145 0
#NO_APP
	popq	%rbp
	.cfi_restore 6
	.cfi_def_cfa 7, 8
	ret
	.cfi_endproc
.LFE2505:
	.size	clflush_cache_range, .-clflush_cache_range
	.section	.text.unlikely


Whilst you are looking at this asm, note that we reload
boot_cpu_data.x86_cflush_size everytime around the loop. That's a small
but noticeable extra cost (especially when we are only flushing a single
cacheline).

diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c b/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
index a3137a4..2cd2b4b 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
@@ -129,14 +129,13 @@ within(unsigned long addr, unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
  */
 void clflush_cache_range(void *vaddr, unsigned int size)
 {
-       unsigned long clflush_mask = boot_cpu_data.x86_clflush_size - 1;
+       unsigned long clflush_size = boot_cpu_data.x86_clflush_size;
        void *vend = vaddr + size;
-       void *p;
+       void *p = (void *)((unsigned long)vaddr & ~(clflush_size - 1));
 
        mb();
 
-       for (p = (void *)((unsigned long)vaddr & ~clflush_mask);
-            p < vend; p += boot_cpu_data.x86_clflush_size)
+       for (; p < vend; p += clflush_size)
                clflushopt(p);
 
        mb();

-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre