On 08/28/2018 04:18 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Em Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 11:10:47AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
Em Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:06:21AM +0200, Martin Liška escreveu:
On 08/23/2018 04:12 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Em Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 02:29:34PM +0200, Martin Liška escreveu:
The patch changes interpretation of:
callq  *0x8(%rbx)

from:
   0.26 │     → callq  *8
to:
   0.26 │     → callq  *0x8(%rbx)

<SNIP>

Please mention one or two functions where such sequence appears, so that
others can reproduce your before/after more quickly,

Sure, there's self-contained example on can compile (-O2) and test.
It's following call in test function:

test:
.LFB1:
         .cfi_startproc
         movq    %rdi, %rax
         subq    $8, %rsp
         .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
         movq    %rsi, %rdi
         movq    %rdx, %rsi
         call    *8(%rax) <---- here
         cmpl    $1, %eax
         adcl    $-1, %eax
         addq    $8, %rsp
         .cfi_def_cfa_offset 8
         ret
         .cfi_endproc

Here I'm getting:

Samples: 2K of event 'cycles:uppp', 4000 Hz, Event count (approx.): 1808551484
test  /home/acme/c/perf-callq [Percent: local period]
   0.17 │      mov    %rdx,-0x28(%rbp)
   0.58 │      mov    -0x18(%rbp),%rax
   7.90 │      mov    0x8(%rax),%rax
   8.67 │      mov    -0x28(%rbp),%rcx
        │      mov    -0x20(%rbp),%rdx
   0.08 │      mov    %rcx,%rsi
   6.28 │      mov    %rdx,%rdi
  10.50 │    → callq  *%rax
   1.67 │      mov    %eax,-0x4(%rbp)
  11.95 │      cmpl   $0x0,-0x4(%rbp)
   8.14 │    ↓ je     3d
        │      mov    -0x4(%rbp),%eax
        │      sub    $0x1,%eax
        │    ↓ jmp    42
        │3d:   mov    $0x0,%eax
   7.84 │42:   leaveq
        │    ← retq

Without the patch, will check if something changes with it.

Hi Arnaldo.

Thanks for re-sending of the patch and for the testing. The example I sent
is dependent on version of GCC compiler.


No changes with the patch, but then I did another test, ran a system
wide record for a while, then tested without/with your patch, with
--stdio2 redirecting to /tmp/{before,after} and got the expected
results, see below.

Thanks, applying,

Good!
Martin


- Arnaldo

--- /tmp/before 2018-08-28 11:16:03.238384143 -0300
+++ /tmp/after  2018-08-28 11:15:39.335341042 -0300
@@ -13274,7 +13274,7 @@
               ↓ jle    128
                 hash_value = hash_table->hash_func (key);
                 mov    0x8(%rsp),%rdi
-  0.91       → callq  *30
+  0.91       → callq  *0x30(%r12)
                 mov    $0x2,%r8d
                 cmp    $0x2,%eax
                 node_hash = hash_table->hashes[node_index];
@@ -13848,7 +13848,7 @@
                  mov    %r14,%rdi
                  sub    %rbx,%r13
                  mov    %r13,%rdx
-              → callq  *38
+              → callq  *0x38(%r15)
                  cmp    %rax,%r13
    1.91        ↓ je     240
           1b4:   mov    $0xffffffff,%r13d
@@ -14026,7 +14026,7 @@
                  mov    %rcx,-0x500(%rbp)
                  mov    %r15,%rsi
                  mov    %r14,%rdi
-              → callq  *38
+              → callq  *0x38(%rax)
                  mov    -0x500(%rbp),%rcx
                  cmp    %rax,%rcx
                ↓ jne    9b0
<SNIP tons of other such cases>


Reply via email to