All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>,
	"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
	"kernel-team@fb.com" <kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] net: Implement fast csum_partial for x86_64
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 08:51:59 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKgT0UcuJWmpwO4hu34qBWhrhqQ5GQMU_dWHF-Dd10+Y9aCH=g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D1CCD63C9@AcuExch.aculab.com>

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:08 AM, David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
> From: Tom Herbert
>> Sent: 03 February 2016 19:19
> ...
>> +     /* Main loop */
>> +50:  adcq    0*8(%rdi),%rax
>> +     adcq    1*8(%rdi),%rax
>> +     adcq    2*8(%rdi),%rax
>> +     adcq    3*8(%rdi),%rax
>> +     adcq    4*8(%rdi),%rax
>> +     adcq    5*8(%rdi),%rax
>> +     adcq    6*8(%rdi),%rax
>> +     adcq    7*8(%rdi),%rax
>> +     adcq    8*8(%rdi),%rax
>> +     adcq    9*8(%rdi),%rax
>> +     adcq    10*8(%rdi),%rax
>> +     adcq    11*8(%rdi),%rax
>> +     adcq    12*8(%rdi),%rax
>> +     adcq    13*8(%rdi),%rax
>> +     adcq    14*8(%rdi),%rax
>> +     adcq    15*8(%rdi),%rax
>> +     lea     128(%rdi), %rdi
>> +     loop    50b
>
> I'd need convincing that unrolling the loop like that gives any significant gain.
> You have a dependency chain on the carry flag so have delays between the 'adcq'
> instructions (these may be more significant than the memory reads from l1 cache).
>
> I also don't remember (might be wrong) the 'loop' instruction being executed quickly.
> If 'loop' is fast then you will probably find that:
>
> 10:     adcq 0(%rdi),%rax
>         lea  8(%rdi),%rdi
>         loop 10b
>
> is just as fast since the three instructions could all be executed in parallel.
> But I suspect that 'dec %cx; jnz 10b' is actually better (and might execute as
> a single micro-op).
> IIRC 'adc' and 'dec' will both have dependencies on the flags register
> so cannot execute together (which is a shame here).
>
> It is also possible that breaking the carry-chain dependency by doing 32bit
> adds (possibly after 64bit reads) can be made to be faster.

If nothing else reducing the size of this main loop may be desirable.
I know the newer x86 is supposed to have a loop buffer so that it can
basically loop on already decoded instructions.  Normally it is only
something like 64 or 128 bytes in size though.  You might find that
reducing this loop to that smaller size may improve the performance
for larger payloads.

- Alex

  reply	other threads:[~2016-02-04 16:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-02-03 19:18 [PATCH v3 net-next] net: Implement fast csum_partial for x86_64 Tom Herbert
2016-02-04  9:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-02-04 10:56   ` Ingo Molnar
2016-02-04 19:24     ` Tom Herbert
2016-02-05  9:24       ` Ingo Molnar
2016-02-04 21:46   ` Linus Torvalds
2016-02-04 22:09     ` Linus Torvalds
2016-02-05  1:27       ` Linus Torvalds
2016-02-05  1:39         ` Linus Torvalds
2016-02-04 22:43     ` Tom Herbert
2016-02-04 22:57       ` Linus Torvalds
2016-02-05  8:01       ` Ingo Molnar
2016-02-05 10:07         ` David Laight
2016-02-04 11:08 ` David Laight
2016-02-04 16:51   ` Alexander Duyck [this message]
2016-02-04 16:58     ` Tom Herbert
2016-02-04 17:09       ` David Laight
2016-02-04 20:59         ` Tom Herbert
2016-02-04 21:09           ` Alexander Duyck
2016-02-04 19:22 ` Alexander Duyck
2016-02-04 19:31   ` Tom Herbert
2016-02-04 19:44   ` Tom Herbert
2016-02-04 20:03     ` Alexander Duyck
2016-02-08 20:12 George Spelvin
2016-02-09 10:48 ` David Laight
2016-02-10  0:53   ` George Spelvin
2016-02-10 11:39     ` David Laight
2016-02-10 14:43       ` George Spelvin
2016-02-10 15:18         ` David Laight

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAKgT0UcuJWmpwO4hu34qBWhrhqQ5GQMU_dWHF-Dd10+Y9aCH=g@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=alexander.duyck@gmail.com \
    --cc=David.Laight@aculab.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tom@herbertland.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.