[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
Subject[patch 8/8] Immediate Value - Documentation
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <>
Documentation/immediate.txt | 180 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 180 insertions(+)

Index: linux-2.6-lttng/Documentation/immediate.txt
--- /dev/null 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
+++ linux-2.6-lttng/Documentation/immediate.txt 2007-07-13 20:39:51.000000000 -0400
@@ -0,0 +1,180 @@
+ Using the Immediate Values
+ Mathieu Desnoyers
+This document introduces Immediate Values and their use.
+* Purpose of immediate values
+An immediate value is used to compile into the kernel variables that sits within
+the instruction stream. They are meant to be rarely updated but read often.
+Using immediate values for these variables will save cache lines.
+This infrastructure is specialized in supporting dynamic patching of the values
+in the instruction stream when multiple CPUs are running without disturbing the
+normal system behavior.
+Compiling code meant to be rarely enabled at runtime can be done using
+immediate_if() as condition surrounding the code.
+* Usage
+In order to use the macro immediate, you should include linux/immediate.h.
+#include <linux/immediate.h>
+immediate_char_t this_immediate;
+Add, in your code :
+Use immediate_set(&this_immediate) to set the immediate value.
+Use immediate_read(&this_immediate) to read the immediate value.
+The immediate mechanism supports inserting multiple instances of the same
+immediate. Immediate values can be put in inline functions, inlined static
+functions, and unrolled loops.
+If you have to read the immediate values from a function declared as __init or
+__exit, you should explicitly use _immediate_read(), which will fall back on a
+global variable read. Failing to do so will leave a reference to the __init
+section after it is freed (it would generate a modpost warning).
+The prefered idiom to dynamically enable compiled-in code is to use
+immediate_if (&this_immediate), which may eventually use gcc improvements to
+provide a jump instruction patching based condition instead of a immediate value
+feeding a conditional jump. You should use _immediate_if () instead of
+immediate_if () in functions marked __init or __exit.
+immediate_set_early() should be used only at early kernel boot time, before SMP
+is activated.
+If you need to declare your own immediate types (for instance, a pointer to
+struct task_struct), use:
+DEFINE_IMMEDIATE_TYPE(struct task_struct*, immediate_task_struct_ptr_t);
+and declare your variable with:
+immediate_task_struct_ptr_t myptr;
+You can choose to set an initial static value to the immediate by using, for
+immediate_task_struct_ptr_t myptr = IMMEDIATE_INIT(10);
+* Optimization for a given architecture
+One can implement optimized immediate values for a given architecture by
+replacing asm-$ARCH/immediate.h.
+* Performance improvement
+* Memory hit for a data-based branch
+Here are the results on a 3GHz Pentium 4:
+number of tests : 100
+number of branches per test : 100000
+memory hit cycles per iteration (mean) : 636.611
+L1 cache hit cycles per iteration (mean) : 89.6413
+instruction stream based test, cycles per iteration (mean) : 85.3438
+Just getting the pointer from a modulo on a pseudo-random value, doing
+ noting with it, cycles per iteration (mean) : 77.5044
+Base case: 77.50 cycles
+instruction stream based test: +7.8394 cycles
+L1 cache hit based test: +12.1369 cycles
+Memory load based test: +559.1066 cycles
+So let's say we have a ping flood coming at
+(14014 packets transmitted, 14014 received, 0% packet loss, time 1826ms)
+7674 packets per second. If we put 2 markers for irq entry/exit, it
+brings us to 15348 markers sites executed per second.
+(15348 exec/s) * (559 cycles/exec) / (3G cycles/s) = 0.0029
+We therefore have a 0.29% slowdown just on this case.
+Compared to this, the instruction stream based test will cause a
+slowdown of:
+(15348 exec/s) * (7.84 cycles/exec) / (3G cycles/s) = 0.00004
+For a 0.004% slowdown.
+If we plan to use this for memory allocation, spinlock, and all sort of
+very high event rate tracing, we can assume it will execute 10 to 100
+times more sites per second, which brings us to 0.4% slowdown with the
+instruction stream based test compared to 29% slowdown with the memory
+load based test on a system with high memory pressure.
+* Markers impact under heavy memory load
+Running a kernel with my LTTng instrumentation set, in a test that
+generates memory pressure (from userspace) by trashing L1 and L2 caches
+between calls to getppid() (note: syscall_trace is active and calls
+a marker upon syscall entry and syscall exit; markers are disarmed).
+This test is done in user-space, so there are some delays due to IRQs
+coming and to the scheduler. (UP 2.6.22-rc6-mm1 kernel, task with -20
+nice level)
+My first set of results : Linear cache trashing, turned out not to be
+very interesting, because it seems like the linearity of the memset on a
+full array is somehow detected and it does not "really" trash the
+Now the most interesting result : Random walk L1 and L2 trashing
+surrounding a getppid() call.
+- Markers compiled out (but syscall_trace execution forced)
+number of tests : 10000
+No memory pressure
+Reading timestamps takes 108.033 cycles
+getppid : 1681.4 cycles
+With memory pressure
+Reading timestamps takes 102.938 cycles
+getppid : 15691.6 cycles
+- With the immediate values based markers:
+number of tests : 10000
+No memory pressure
+Reading timestamps takes 108.006 cycles
+getppid : 1681.84 cycles
+With memory pressure
+Reading timestamps takes 100.291 cycles
+getppid : 11793 cycles
+- With global variables based markers:
+number of tests : 10000
+No memory pressure
+Reading timestamps takes 107.999 cycles
+getppid : 1669.06 cycles
+With memory pressure
+Reading timestamps takes 102.839 cycles
+getppid : 12535 cycles
+The result is quite interesting in that the kernel is slower without
+markers than with markers. I explain it by the fact that the data
+accessed is not layed out in the same manner in the cache lines when the
+markers are compiled in or out. It seems that it aligns the function's
+data better to compile-in the markers in this case.
+But since the interesting comparison is between the immediate values and
+global variables based markers, and because they share the same memory
+layout, except for the movl being replaced by a movz, we see that the
+global variable based markers (2 markers) adds 742 cycles to each system
+call (syscall entry and exit are traced and memory locations for both
+global variables lie on the same cache line).
+Therefore, not only is it interesting to use the immediate values to
+dynamically activate dormant code such as the markers, but I think it
+should also be considered as a replacement for many of the "read mostly"
+static variables.
Mathieu Desnoyers
Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-07-14 03:45    [W:0.121 / U:3.008 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site