tcg/i386: enable dynamic TLB sizing

As the following experiments show, this series is a net perf gain,
particularly for memory-heavy workloads. Experiments are run on an
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6142 CPU @ 2.60GHz.

1. System boot + shudown, debian aarch64:

- Before (v3.1.0):
 Performance counter stats for './die.sh v3.1.0' (10 runs):

       9019.797015      task-clock (msec)         #    0.993 CPUs utilized            ( +-  0.23% )
    29,910,312,379      cycles                    #    3.316 GHz                      ( +-  0.14% )
    54,699,252,014      instructions              #    1.83  insn per cycle           ( +-  0.08% )
    10,061,951,686      branches                  # 1115.541 M/sec                    ( +-  0.08% )
       172,966,530      branch-misses             #    1.72% of all branches          ( +-  0.07% )

       9.084039051 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +-  0.23% )

- After:
 Performance counter stats for './die.sh tlb-dyn-v5' (10 runs):

       8624.084842      task-clock (msec)         #    0.993 CPUs utilized            ( +-  0.23% )
    28,556,123,404      cycles                    #    3.311 GHz                      ( +-  0.13% )
    51,755,089,512      instructions              #    1.81  insn per cycle           ( +-  0.05% )
     9,526,513,946      branches                  # 1104.641 M/sec                    ( +-  0.05% )
       166,578,509      branch-misses             #    1.75% of all branches          ( +-  0.19% )

       8.680540350 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +-  0.24% )

That is, a 4.4% perf increase.

2. System boot + shutdown, ubuntu 18.04 x86_64:

- Before (v3.1.0):
      56100.574751      task-clock (msec)         #    1.016 CPUs utilized            ( +-  4.81% )
   200,745,466,128      cycles                    #    3.578 GHz                      ( +-  5.24% )
   431,949,100,608      instructions              #    2.15  insn per cycle           ( +-  5.65% )
    77,502,383,330      branches                  # 1381.490 M/sec                    ( +-  6.18% )
       844,681,191      branch-misses             #    1.09% of all branches          ( +-  3.82% )

      55.221556378 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +-  5.01% )

- After:
      56603.419540      task-clock (msec)         #    1.019 CPUs utilized            ( +- 10.19% )
   202,217,930,479      cycles                    #    3.573 GHz                      ( +- 10.69% )
   439,336,291,626      instructions              #    2.17  insn per cycle           ( +- 14.14% )
    80,538,357,447      branches                  # 1422.853 M/sec                    ( +- 16.09% )
       776,321,622      branch-misses             #    0.96% of all branches          ( +-  3.77% )

      55.549661409 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +- 10.44% )

No improvement (within noise range). Note that for this workload,
increasing the time window too much can lead to perf degradation,
since it flushes the TLB *very* frequently.

3. x86_64 SPEC06int:

           x86_64-softmmu speedup vs. v3.1.0 for SPEC06int (test set)
            Host: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6142 CPU @ 2.60GHz (Skylake)

5.5 +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
    |                   +-+                                                  |
  5 |-+.................+-+...............................tlb-dyn-v5.......+-|
    |                   * *                                                  |
4.5 |-+.................*.*................................................+-|
    |                   * *                                                  |
  4 |-+.................*.*................................................+-|
    |                   * *                                                  |
3.5 |-+.................*.*................................................+-|
    |                   * *                                                  |
  3 |-+......+-+*.......*.*................................................+-|
    |        *  *       * *                                                  |
2.5 |-+......*..*.......*.*.................................+-+*...........+-|
    |        *  *       * *                                 *  *             |
  2 |-+......*..*.......*.*.................................*..*...........+-|
    |        *  *       * *                                 *  *  +-+        |
1.5 |-+......*..*.......*.*.................................*..*.*+-+.*+-+.+-|
    |        *  * *+-+  * *  +-+       *+-+  +-+       +-+  *  * *  * *  *   |
  1 |++++-+*+*++*+*++*++*+*++*+*+++-+*+*+-++*+-++++-++++-+++*++*+*++*+*++*+++|
    |   *  * *  * *  *  * *  * *  *  * *  * *  *  * *  * *  *  * *  * *  *   |
0.5 +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  400.perlb401.bzip403.g429445.g456.hm462.libq464.h471.omn47483.xalancbgeomean
  png: https://imgur.com/YRF90f7

That is, a 1.51x average speedup over the baseline, with a max speedup
of 5.17x.

Here's a different look at the SPEC06int results, using KVM as the baseline:

             x86_64-softmmu slowdown vs. KVM for SPEC06int (test set)
             Host: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6142 CPU @ 2.60GHz (Skylake)

25 +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                   +-+                                        +-+          |
   |                   * *                             +-+      v3.1.0         |
   |                   * *                             +-+  tlb-dyn-v5         |
   |                   * *                             * *        +-+          |
20 |-+.................*.*.............................*.+-+......*.*........+-|
   |                   * *                             * # #      * *          |
   |        +-+        * *                             * # #      * *          |
   |        * *        * *                             * # #      * *          |
15 |-+......*.*........*.*.............................*.#.#......*.+-+......+-|
   |        * *        * *                             * # #      * #|#        |
   |        * *        * *        +-+                  * # #      * +-+        |
   |        * *  +-+   * *        ++-+       +-+       * # #      * # # +-+    |
   |        * *  +-+   * *        * ##       *|   +-+  * # #      * # # +-+    |
10 |-+......*.*..*.+-+.*.*........*.##.......++-+.*.+-+*.#.#......*.#.#.*.*..+-|
   |        * *  * +-+ * *        * ## +-+   *# # * # #* # # +-+  * # # * *    |
   |        * *  * # # * *  +-+   * ## * +-+ *# # * # #* # # * *  * # # *+-+   |
   |        * *  * # # * *  * +-+ * ## * # # *# # * # #* # # * *  * # # * ##   |
 5 |-+......*.+-+*.#.#.*.*..*.#.#.*.##.*.#.#.*#.#.*.#.#*.#.#.*.*..*.#.#.*.##.+-|
   |        * # #* # # * +-+* # # * ## * # # *# # * # #* # # * *  * # # * ##   |
   |        * # #* # # * # #* # # * ## * # # *# # * # #* # # * +-+* # # * ##   |
   |   ++-+ * # #* # # * # #* # # * ## * # # *# # * # #* # # * # #* # # * ##   |
   |+++*#+#+*+#+#*+#+#+*+#+#*+#+#+*+##+*+#+#+*#+#+*+#+#*+#+#+*+#+#*+#+#+*+##+++|
 0 +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 400.perlbe401.bzi403.gc429445.go456.h462.libqu464.h471.omne4483.xalancbmgeomean
  png: https://imgur.com/YzAMNEV

After this series, we bring down the average SPEC06int slowdown vs KVM
from 11.47x to 7.58x.

Tested-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Emilio G. Cota <cota@braap.org>
Message-Id: <20190116170114.26802-4-cota@braap.org>
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>

1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/tcg/i386/tcg-target.h b/tcg/i386/tcg-target.h
index 94aa4cef7c..eb40312e67 100644
--- a/tcg/i386/tcg-target.h
+++ b/tcg/i386/tcg-target.h
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
 
 #define TCG_TARGET_INSN_UNIT_SIZE  1
 #define TCG_TARGET_TLB_DISPLACEMENT_BITS 31
-#define TCG_TARGET_IMPLEMENTS_DYN_TLB 0
+#define TCG_TARGET_IMPLEMENTS_DYN_TLB 1
 
 #ifdef __x86_64__
 # define TCG_TARGET_REG_BITS  64