Re: [PATCH] RFC x86/msr: Use WRMSRNS $imm when available

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/08/2025 9:16 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 09.08.2025 00:20, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>> CC: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> This is on top of the FRED series for the wrmsrns() cleanup, but otherwise
>> unrelated.
>>
>> The code generation isn't entirely ideal
>>
>>   Function                                     old     new   delta
>>   init_fred                                    255     274     +19
>>   vmx_set_reg                                  248     256      +8
>>   enter_state_helper.cold                     1014    1018      +4
>>   __start_xen                                 8893    8897      +4
>>
>> but made worse by the the prior codegen for wrmsrns(MSR_STAR, ...) being mad:
>>
>>   mov    $0xc0000081,%ecx
>>   mov    $0xe023e008,%edx
>>   movabs $0xe023e00800000000,%rax
>>   cs wrmsr
>>
>> The two sources of code expansion come from the compiler not being able to
>> construct %eax and %edx separately, and not being able propagate constants.
>>
>> Loading 0 is possibly common enough to warrant another specialisation where 
>> we
>> can use "a" (0), "d" (0) and forgo the MOV+SHR.
>>
>> I'm probably overthinking things.  The addition will be in the noise in
>> practice, and Intel are sure the advantage of MSR_IMM will not be.
> It's not entirely clear to me what the overall effects are now with your
> 02/22 reply on the FRED series.

The delta gets larger now that 2/22 isn't quite as bad as it was.

>  Nevertheless a nit or two here.
>
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h
>> @@ -38,9 +38,46 @@ static inline void wrmsrl(unsigned int msr, uint64_t val)
>>          wrmsr(msr, lo, hi);
>>  }
>>  
>> +/*
>> + * Non-serialising WRMSR with a compile-time constant index, when available.
>> + * Falls back to plain WRMSRNS, or to a serialising WRMSR.
>> + */
>> +static always_inline void __wrmsrns_imm(uint32_t msr, uint64_t val)
>> +{
>> +    /*
>> +     * For best performance, WRMSRNS %r64, $msr is recommended.  For
>> +     * compatibility, we need to fall back to plain WRMSRNS, or to WRMSR.
>> +     *
>> +     * The combined ABI is awkward, because WRMSRNS $imm takes a single r64,
>> +     * whereas WRMSR{,NS} takes a split edx:eax pair.
>> +     *
>> +     * Always use WRMSRNS %rax, $imm, because it has the most in common with
>> +     * the legacy forms.  When MSR_IMM isn't available, emit setup logic for
>> +     * %ecx and %edx too.
>> +     */
>> +    alternative_input_2(
>> +        "mov $%c[msr], %%ecx\n\t"
> Simply %[msr] here?
>
> And then, might it make sense to pull out this and ...
>
>> +        "mov %%rax, %%rdx\n\t"
>> +        "shr $32, %%rdx\n\t"
>> +        ".byte 0x2e; wrmsr",
>> +
>> +        /* WRMSRNS %rax, $msr */
>> +        ".byte 0xc4,0xe7,0x7a,0xf6,0xc0; .long %c[msr]", 
>> X86_FEATURE_MSR_IMM,
>> +
>> +        "mov $%c[msr], %%ecx\n\t"
> ... this, to ...
>
>> +        "mov %%rax, %%rdx\n\t"
>> +        "shr $32, %%rdx\n\t"
>> +        ".byte 0x0f,0x01,0xc6", X86_FEATURE_WRMSRNS,
>> +
>> +        [msr] "i" (msr), "a" (val) : "rcx", "rdx");
>         [msr] "i" (msr), "a" (val), "c" (msr) : "rdx");
>
> allowing the compiler to actually know what's put in %ecx? That'll make
> original and 2nd replacement code 10 bytes, better balancing with the 9
> bytes of the 1st replacement. And I'd guess that the potentially dead
> MOV to %ecx would be hidden in the noise as well.

I considered that, but what can the compiler do as a result of knowing %ecx?

That said, we do need an RDMSR form (which I desperately want to make
foo = rdmsr(MSR_BAR) but my cleanup series from 2019 got nowhere), and
in a read+write case I suppose the compiler could deduplicate the setup
of %ecx.

A dead mov $imm, %ecx probably is as close to a nop as makes no difference.

~Andrew