lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [May]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Avoid initializing variables prematurely
On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 4:02 PM srinivas pandruvada
<srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2023-05-23 at 15:37 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 2:20 PM srinivas pandruvada
> > <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2023-05-23 at 13:08 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 10:51 AM Fieah Lim <kweifat@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > We should avoid initializing some rather expensive data
> > > > > when the function has a chance to bail out earlier
> > > > > before actually using it.
> > > > > This applies to the following initializations:
> > > > >
> > > > > - cpudata *cpu = all_cpu_data; (in everywhere)
> > > > > - this_cpu = smp_processor_id(); (in notify_hwp_interrupt)
> > > > > - hwp_cap = READ_ONCE(cpu->hwp_cap_cached); (in
> > > > > intel_pstate_hwp_boost_up)
> > > > >
> > > > > These initializations are premature because there is a chance
> > > > > that the function will bail out before actually using the data.
> > > > > I think this qualifies as a micro-optimization,
> > > > > especially in such a hot path.
> > > > >
> > > > > While at it, tidy up how and when we initialize
> > > > > all of the cpu_data pointers, for the sake of consistency.
> > > > >
> > > > > A side note on the intel_pstate_cpu_online change:
> > > > > we simply don't have to initialize cpudata just
> > > > > for the pr_debug, while policy->cpu is being there.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Fieah Lim <kweifat@gmail.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > V1 -> V2: Rewrite changelog for better explanation.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > > void notify_hwp_interrupt(void)
> > > > > {
> > > > > - unsigned int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > > > > + unsigned int this_cpu;
> > > > > struct cpudata *cpudata;
> > > > > unsigned long flags;
> > > > > u64 value;
> > > > > @@ -1591,6 +1593,8 @@ void notify_hwp_interrupt(void)
> > > > > if (!(value & 0x01))
> > > > > return;
> > > > >
> > > > > + this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > > > > +
> > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&hwp_notify_lock, flags);
> > > > >
> > > > > if (!cpumask_test_cpu(this_cpu, &hwp_intr_enable_mask))
> > > >
> > > > This is a place where it may really matter for performance, but
> > > > how
> > > > much? Can you actually estimate this?
> > >
> > > If DEBUG_PREEMPT is defined
> > > ~12 instructions (most of them with latency = 1 in dependency
> > > chain)
> >
> > I really meant "estimate the effect of this change on performance",
> > because I'm not sure if it is going to be visible in any test.
> >
> > But yes, skipping it if not needed at least makes some sense.
> It will have neglible effect.

Well, I agree.

> I can measure it, but may be next week.

No need really.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-05-23 16:36    [W:1.634 / U:0.944 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site