Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 03/22] tcg-i386: Tidy ext8u and ext16u operations.

[Aurelien Jarno]

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:31:27AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 05/18/2010 11:47 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > The reg allocator is able to issue move if needed, so the only
> > improvement this patch is for doing a ext8u on both "q" registers.
> > 
> > OTOH the reg allocator knows this situation and will try to avoid this
> > situation during the allocation. Cheating on the reg allocator might
> > have some wrong effects, especially after your patch "Allocate
> > call-saved registers first". I am thinking of the scenario where the
> > value is in memory (which is likely to be the case given the limited 
> > number of registers), it will be likely loaded in a "r" register (they
> > are now at the top priority), and then ext8u will be called, which will 
> > issue "mov" + "and" instructions instead of a "movzbl" instruction.
> 
> The case I was concerned with is the fact that if we have a value
> allocated to, say, %esi, and we need to to an ext8u, then the 
> register allocator has been told that it must move the value to a
> "q" register in order to perform the movzbl.  In this case, the
> new code will simply emit the andl.
> 
> I.e. the real problem is that we've told the register allocator
> one way that the extend can be implemented, but not every way.
> 
> > All of that is purely theoretical. Do you know how does it behave in 
> > practice?
> 
> Picking the i386 target since it seems to use more extensions than
> any other target, from linux-user-test -d op_opt,out_asm i386/ls:
> 
> There are 176 instances of ext8u.
> Of those, 83 instances are in-place, i.e. "ext8u_i32 tmp0,tmp0"
> 
> I examined the first 2 dozen appearances in the output assembly:
> 
> There are several instances of the value being in an "r" register:
> 
>  shr_i32 tmp1,edx,tmp13
>  ext8u_i32 tmp1,tmp1
>  =>
> 0x601c5468:  shr    $0x8,%edi
> 0x601c546b:  and    $0xff,%edi
> 
> All of the instances that I looked at that were not in-place happened
> to already be using a "q" register -- usually %ebx.  I assume that's
> because we place %ebx as the first allocation register and that's just
> how things happen to work out once we've flushed the registers before
> the qemu_ld.
> 
>  qemu_ld8u tmp0,tmp2,$0xffffffff
>  ext8u_i32 tmp13,tmp0
>  =>
> 0x601c82f9:  movzbl (%esi),%ebx
> 0x601c82fc:  movzbl %bl,%ebx
> 

Do you have tried to compare the generated code before and after your
patch? I expect a few cases where your patch has some drawbacks, so I
don't know if there is a net gain on the size of the translated code.

-- 
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
address@hidden                 http://www.aurel32.net