[v3] tcg/ppc: Optimize 26-bit jumps

PowerPC64 processors handle direct branches better than indirect
ones, resulting in less stalled cycles and branch misses.

However, PPC's tb_target_set_jmp_target() was only using direct
branches for 16-bit jumps, while PowerPC64's unconditional branch
instructions are able to handle displacements of up to 26 bits.
To take advantage of this, now jumps whose displacements fit in
between 17 and 26 bits are also converted to direct branches.

Signed-off-by: Leandro Lupori <leandro.lupori@eldorado.org.br>
---
v3:
  - make goto tb code 16-byte aligned
  - code cleanup

v2: use stq to replace all instructions atomically

 tcg/ppc/tcg-target.c.inc | 105 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 74 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)

On 9/19/22 14:56, Leandro Lupori wrote:
> PowerPC64 processors handle direct branches better than indirect
> ones, resulting in less stalled cycles and branch misses.
> 
> However, PPC's tb_target_set_jmp_target() was only using direct
> branches for 16-bit jumps, while PowerPC64's unconditional branch
> instructions are able to handle displacements of up to 26 bits.
> To take advantage of this, now jumps whose displacements fit in
> between 17 and 26 bits are also converted to direct branches.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Leandro Lupori <leandro.lupori@eldorado.org.br>
> ---
> v3:
>    - make goto tb code 16-byte aligned
>    - code cleanup
> 

Ping?

Does v3 look good now?

Regards,
Leandro

> v2: use stq to replace all instructions atomically
> 
>   tcg/ppc/tcg-target.c.inc | 105 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>   1 file changed, 74 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tcg/ppc/tcg-target.c.inc b/tcg/ppc/tcg-target.c.inc
> index 1cbd047ab3..0cde11c3de 100644
> --- a/tcg/ppc/tcg-target.c.inc
> +++ b/tcg/ppc/tcg-target.c.inc
> @@ -1847,44 +1847,87 @@ static void tcg_out_mb(TCGContext *s, TCGArg a0)
>       tcg_out32(s, insn);
>   }
>   
> -void tb_target_set_jmp_target(uintptr_t tc_ptr, uintptr_t jmp_rx,
> -                              uintptr_t jmp_rw, uintptr_t addr)
> +static inline uint64_t make_pair(tcg_insn_unit i1, tcg_insn_unit i2)
>   {
> -    if (TCG_TARGET_REG_BITS == 64) {
> -        tcg_insn_unit i1, i2;
> -        intptr_t tb_diff = addr - tc_ptr;
> -        intptr_t br_diff = addr - (jmp_rx + 4);
> -        uint64_t pair;
> -
> -        /* This does not exercise the range of the branch, but we do
> -           still need to be able to load the new value of TCG_REG_TB.
> -           But this does still happen quite often.  */
> -        if (tb_diff == (int16_t)tb_diff) {
> -            i1 = ADDI | TAI(TCG_REG_TB, TCG_REG_TB, tb_diff);
> -            i2 = B | (br_diff & 0x3fffffc);
> -        } else {
> -            intptr_t lo = (int16_t)tb_diff;
> -            intptr_t hi = (int32_t)(tb_diff - lo);
> -            assert(tb_diff == hi + lo);
> -            i1 = ADDIS | TAI(TCG_REG_TB, TCG_REG_TB, hi >> 16);
> -            i2 = ADDI | TAI(TCG_REG_TB, TCG_REG_TB, lo);
> -        }
> -#if HOST_BIG_ENDIAN
> -        pair = (uint64_t)i1 << 32 | i2;
> +    if (HOST_BIG_ENDIAN) {
> +        return (uint64_t)i1 << 32 | i2;
> +    }
> +    return (uint64_t)i2 << 32 | i1;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void ppc64_replace2(uintptr_t rx, uintptr_t rw,
> +    tcg_insn_unit i0, tcg_insn_unit i1)
> +{
> +#if TCG_TARGET_REG_BITS == 64
> +    qatomic_set((uint64_t *)rw, make_pair(i0, i1));
> +    flush_idcache_range(rx, rw, 8);
>   #else
> -        pair = (uint64_t)i2 << 32 | i1;
> +    qemu_build_not_reached();
>   #endif
> +}
>   
> -        /* As per the enclosing if, this is ppc64.  Avoid the _Static_assert
> -           within qatomic_set that would fail to build a ppc32 host.  */
> -        qatomic_set__nocheck((uint64_t *)jmp_rw, pair);
> -        flush_idcache_range(jmp_rx, jmp_rw, 8);
> -    } else {
> +static inline void ppc64_replace4(uintptr_t rx, uintptr_t rw,
> +    tcg_insn_unit i0, tcg_insn_unit i1, tcg_insn_unit i2, tcg_insn_unit i3)
> +{
> +    uint64_t p[2];
> +
> +    p[!HOST_BIG_ENDIAN] = make_pair(i0, i1);
> +    p[HOST_BIG_ENDIAN] = make_pair(i2, i3);
> +
> +    asm("mr  %%r6, %1\n\t"
> +        "mr  %%r7, %2\n\t"
> +        "stq %%r6, %0"
> +        : "=Q"(*(__int128 *)rw) : "r"(p[0]), "r"(p[1]) : "r6", "r7");
> +    flush_idcache_range(rx, rw, 16);
> +}
> +
> +void tb_target_set_jmp_target(uintptr_t tc_ptr, uintptr_t jmp_rx,
> +                              uintptr_t jmp_rw, uintptr_t addr)
> +{
> +    tcg_insn_unit i0, i1, i2, i3;
> +    intptr_t tb_diff = addr - tc_ptr;
> +    intptr_t br_diff = addr - (jmp_rx + 4);
> +    intptr_t lo, hi;
> +
> +    if (TCG_TARGET_REG_BITS == 32) {
>           intptr_t diff = addr - jmp_rx;
>           tcg_debug_assert(in_range_b(diff));
>           qatomic_set((uint32_t *)jmp_rw, B | (diff & 0x3fffffc));
>           flush_idcache_range(jmp_rx, jmp_rw, 4);
> +        return;
> +    }
> +
> +    /*
> +     * This does not exercise the range of the branch, but we do
> +     * still need to be able to load the new value of TCG_REG_TB.
> +     * But this does still happen quite often.
> +     */
> +    if (tb_diff == (int16_t)tb_diff) {
> +        i0 = ADDI | TAI(TCG_REG_TB, TCG_REG_TB, tb_diff);
> +        i1 = B | (br_diff & 0x3fffffc);
> +        ppc64_replace2(jmp_rx, jmp_rw, i0, i1);
> +        return;
> +    }
> +
> +    lo = (int16_t)tb_diff;
> +    hi = (int32_t)(tb_diff - lo);
> +    assert(tb_diff == hi + lo);
> +    i0 = ADDIS | TAI(TCG_REG_TB, TCG_REG_TB, hi >> 16);
> +    i1 = ADDI | TAI(TCG_REG_TB, TCG_REG_TB, lo);
> +    if (!have_isa_2_07) {
> +        ppc64_replace2(jmp_rx, jmp_rw, i0, i1);
> +        return;
> +    }
> +
> +    br_diff -= 4;
> +    if (in_range_b(br_diff)) {
> +        i2 = B | (br_diff & 0x3fffffc);
> +        i3 = NOP;
> +    } else {
> +        i2 = MTSPR | RS(TCG_REG_TB) | CTR;
> +        i3 = BCCTR | BO_ALWAYS;
>       }
> +    ppc64_replace4(jmp_rx, jmp_rw, i0, i1, i2, i3);
>   }
>   
>   static void tcg_out_call_int(TCGContext *s, int lk,
> @@ -2574,8 +2617,8 @@ static void tcg_out_op(TCGContext *s, TCGOpcode opc,
>           if (s->tb_jmp_insn_offset) {
>               /* Direct jump. */
>               if (TCG_TARGET_REG_BITS == 64) {
> -                /* Ensure the next insns are 8-byte aligned. */
> -                if ((uintptr_t)s->code_ptr & 7) {
> +                /* Ensure the next insns are 16-byte aligned. */
> +                while ((uintptr_t)s->code_ptr & 15) {
>                       tcg_out32(s, NOP);
>                   }
>                   s->tb_jmp_insn_offset[args[0]] = tcg_current_code_size(s);

On 10/3/22 11:32, Leandro Lupori wrote:
> On 9/19/22 14:56, Leandro Lupori wrote:
>> PowerPC64 processors handle direct branches better than indirect
>> ones, resulting in less stalled cycles and branch misses.
>>
>> However, PPC's tb_target_set_jmp_target() was only using direct
>> branches for 16-bit jumps, while PowerPC64's unconditional branch
>> instructions are able to handle displacements of up to 26 bits.
>> To take advantage of this, now jumps whose displacements fit in
>> between 17 and 26 bits are also converted to direct branches.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Leandro Lupori <leandro.lupori@eldorado.org.br>
>> ---
>> v3:
>>    - make goto tb code 16-byte aligned
>>    - code cleanup
>>
> 
> Ping?
> 
> Does v3 look good now?

It does, thanks.  I will queue it for tcg-next.


r~