Linux-ARM-Kernel Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
To: Lingyan Huang <huanglingyan2@huawei.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] arm64: lib: accelerate do_csum with NEON instruction
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 14:58:02 +0000
Message-ID: <20190109142513.GA3554@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1546739729-17234-1-git-send-email-huanglingyan2@huawei.com>

On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 09:55:29AM +0800, Lingyan Huang wrote:
> Function do_csum() in lib/checksum.c is used to compute checksum,
> which is turned out to be slowly and costs a lot of resources.
> Let's use neon instructions to accelerate the checksum computation
> for arm64.
> 
> ------
> V2 ==> V3:
>     only modify the arm64 codes instead of modifying headers
>     under asm-generic and code in lib/checksum.c.
> ------
> ------
> V1 ==> V2:
>     Change NEON assembly code to NEON intrinsic code which is built
>     on top of arm_neon.h to avoid dropping into assembly.
> ------
> 
> Here is the comparison results of function ip_compute_csum() between
> general do_csum() and neon instruction do_csum(). The test platform 
> is HUAWEI 1620 server with TAISHAN cores.
> 
>         len(1000cycle)      general(ns)        do_csum_neon(ns)
>           64B:                58060                 59460
>          128B:                82930                 83930
>          256B:               132480                 73570
>          512B:               230100                 86230
>         1024B:               426600                 98200

For testing purposes, you would need to cover all possible aligments of
buff and all values of (len % 16), as well as testing on big- and
little-endian.

Otherwise, a lot of code for handling edge cases won't be tested.


Also, it would be interesting to know which sizes are actually most
common at runtime, to avoid falling into the trap of optimising for
rare cases at the expense of the more common cases.

You could try adding some instrumentation to collect some statistics on
this.

> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Lingyan Huang <huanglingyan2@huawei.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/checksum.h |   5 ++
>  arch/arm64/lib/Makefile           |   8 +--
>  arch/arm64/lib/checksum.c         |  26 ++++++++
>  arch/arm64/lib/do_csum.c          | 136 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  4 files changed, 171 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 arch/arm64/lib/checksum.c
>  create mode 100644 arch/arm64/lib/do_csum.c
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/checksum.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/checksum.h
> index 0b6f5a7..7acd713 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/checksum.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/checksum.h
> @@ -26,6 +26,10 @@ static inline __sum16 csum_fold(__wsum csum)
>  }
>  #define csum_fold csum_fold
>  
> +#define do_csum do_csum
> +unsigned int do_csum(const unsigned char *buff, int len);
> +extern unsigned int do_csum_arm(const unsigned char *buff, int len);
> +
>  static inline __sum16 ip_fast_csum(const void *iph, unsigned int ihl)
>  {
>  	__uint128_t tmp;
> @@ -46,6 +50,7 @@ static inline __sum16 ip_fast_csum(const void *iph, unsigned int ihl)
>  }
>  #define ip_fast_csum ip_fast_csum
>  
> +
>  #include <asm-generic/checksum.h>
>  
>  #endif	/* __ASM_CHECKSUM_H */
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/lib/Makefile b/arch/arm64/lib/Makefile
> index 5540a16..c0b5b8c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/lib/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/arm64/lib/Makefile
> @@ -3,12 +3,12 @@ lib-y		:= clear_user.o delay.o copy_from_user.o		\
>  		   copy_to_user.o copy_in_user.o copy_page.o		\
>  		   clear_page.o memchr.o memcpy.o memmove.o memset.o	\
>  		   memcmp.o strcmp.o strncmp.o strlen.o strnlen.o	\
> -		   strchr.o strrchr.o tishift.o
> +		   strchr.o strrchr.o tishift.o checksum.o
>  
>  ifeq ($(CONFIG_KERNEL_MODE_NEON), y)
> -obj-$(CONFIG_XOR_BLOCKS)	+= xor-neon.o
> -CFLAGS_REMOVE_xor-neon.o	+= -mgeneral-regs-only
> -CFLAGS_xor-neon.o		+= -ffreestanding

Did you mean to delete these lines?

> +obj-y    += do_csum.o
> +CFLAGS_REMOVE_do_csum.o	+= -mgeneral-regs-only
> +CFLAGS_do_csum.o		+= -ffreestanding
>  endif
>  
>  # Tell the compiler to treat all general purpose registers (with the
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/lib/checksum.c b/arch/arm64/lib/checksum.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..15a31bb
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm64/lib/checksum.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/*
> + *
> + * Authors: Lingyan Huang <huanglingyan2@huawei.com>
> + * Copyright (C) 2018 Hisilicon, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
> + *
> + * Generic C or neon implementation of do_csum operations.
> + * Choose faster neon instructions when NEON is supported.
> + *
> + */
> +
> +#include <asm/neon.h>
> +#include <asm/simd.h>
> +#include <asm/checksum.h>
> +
> +#define CSUM_NEON_THRESHOLD 128
> +
> +unsigned int do_csum(const unsigned char *buff, int len)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_KERNEL_MODE_NEON
> +	if (len >= CSUM_NEON_THRESHOLD)
> +		return do_csum_arm(buff, len);
> +#endif  /* CONFIG_KERNEL_MODE_NEON */
> +#undef do_csum
> +	return 0;
> +}
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/lib/do_csum.c b/arch/arm64/lib/do_csum.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..893583f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm64/lib/do_csum.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,136 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/*
> + * Authors: Lingyan Huang <huanglingyan2@huawei.com>
> + * Copyright (C) 2018 Hisilicon, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
> + *
> + * Generic C or neon implementation of do_csum operations.
> + * Choose faster neon instructions when NEON is supported.
> + *
> + */
> +
> +#include <asm/neon.h>
> +#include <asm/simd.h>

Unless you call may_use_simd() (see below) I can't see why you need to
include <asm/simd.h>.

> +#include <asm/checksum.h>
> +#include <asm/byteorder.h>
> +#include <asm/neon-intrinsics.h>
> +
> +#define CSUM_NEON_THRESHOLD 128
> +#ifdef CONFIG_KERNEL_MODE_NEON
> +static inline u32 from64to16(u64 x)
> +{
> +	/* add up 32-bit and 32-bit for 32+c bit */
> +	x = (x & 0xffffffff) + (x >> 32);
> +	/* add up carry.. */
> +	x = (x & 0xffffffff) + (x >> 32);
> +	/* add up 16-bit and 16-bit for 16+c bit */
> +	x = ((u32)x & 0xffff) + ((u32)x >> 16);
> +	/* add up carry.. */
> +	x = ((u32)x & 0xffff) + ((u32)x >> 16);
> +	return x;
> +}
> +
> +unsigned int do_csum_neon(const unsigned char *buff, int len)
> +{
> +	unsigned int odd, count;
> +	uint64_t result = 0;
> +	unsigned int count64;
> +	uint32x4_t vzero = (uint32x4_t){0, 0, 0, 0};
> +
> +	register uint32x4_t v0, v1, v2, v3;

Is "register" needed here?  Is there any impact on performance?

Usually it's best to leave register allocation decisions up to the
compiler.

> +
> +	if (unlikely(len <= 0))
> +		return result;
> +
> +	odd = 1 & (unsigned long)buff;
> +	if (unlikely(odd)) {
> +		result = *buff;

The generic code has a shift here for the little-endian case.  Why don't
we need that here?

> +		len--;
> +		buff++;
> +	}
> +
> +	count = len >> 1;
> +	if (count) {
> +		if (2 & (unsigned long)buff) {
> +			result += *(unsigned short *)buff;
> +			count--;
> +			len -= 2;
> +			buff += 2;
> +		}
> +		count >>= 1;            /* nr of 32-bit words.. */
> +		if (count) {
> +			if (4 & (unsigned long)buff) {
> +				result += *(unsigned int *)buff;
> +				count--;
> +				len -= 4;
> +				buff += 4;
> +			}
> +			count >>= 1;    /* nr of 64-bit words.. */
> +
> +			v0 = vzero;
> +			v1 = vzero;
> +			v2 = vzero;
> +			v3 = vzero;
> +
> +			count64 = count >> 3;  /* compute 64 Byte circle */
> +			while (count64) {
> +				v0 = vpadalq_u16(v0,
> +					vld1q_u16((uint16_t *)buff + 0));

Can this loop iterate more than 65536 times?  If it can, it looks like
we can overflow.

(I think the initial value of len would have to be > 0x400000 in order
for this to happen.)

> +				v1 = vpadalq_u16(v1,
> +					vld1q_u16((uint16_t *)buff + 8));
> +				v2 = vpadalq_u16(v2,
> +					vld1q_u16((uint16_t *)buff + 16));
> +				v3 = vpadalq_u16(v3,
> +					vld1q_u16((uint16_t *)buff + 24));
> +				buff += 64;
> +				count64--;
> +			}
> +			v0 = vaddq_u32(v0, v1);
> +			v2 = vaddq_u32(v2, v3);
> +			v0 = vaddq_u32(v0, v2);

Can't we defer the folding down until later?  We could just accumulate
the next 16 bytes' result into v0, and do the folding all in one go
later on.

> +
> +			count %= 8;
> +			while (count >= 2) { /* compute 16 byte circle */
> +				v0 = vpadalq_u16(v0,
> +					vld1q_u16((uint16_t *)buff + 0));
> +				buff += 16;
> +				count -= 2;
> +			}
> +
> +			result += vgetq_lane_u32(v0, 0);
> +			result += vgetq_lane_u32(v0, 1);
> +			result += vgetq_lane_u32(v0, 2);
> +			result += vgetq_lane_u32(v0, 3);
> +			if (count & 1) {
> +				result += *(unsigned long long *)buff;
> +				buff += 8;
> +			}
> +			if (len & 4) {
> +				result += *(unsigned int *)buff;
> +				buff += 4;
> +			}
> +		}
> +		if (len & 2) {
> +			result += *(unsigned short *)buff;
> +			buff += 2;
> +		}
> +	}
> +	if (len & 1)
> +		result += *buff;

What about the little-endian case?

> +	result = from64to16(result);
> +	if (odd)
> +		result = ((result >> 8) & 0xff) | ((result & 0xff) << 8);
> +	return result;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> +
> +unsigned int do_csum_arm(const unsigned char *buff, int len)
> +{
> +	unsigned int res;
> +
> +	kernel_neon_begin();
> +	res = do_csum_neon(buff, len);

If len can be large, you should split into smaller blocks, with
kernel_neon_end()/_begin() between to provide a change to preempt if len
is large.  (Splitting into smaller blocks may also help avoid overflow.)

Ard may have may able to suggest how often this should be done.

Also, there is no guarantee that you can use NEON in softirq context,
because the kernel may already have been using NEON when the softirq
fired.  If this code may get called from softirq context, then you would
need something along the lines of

	if (may_use_simd()) {
		kernel_neon_begin();
		/* NEON accelerated code */
		kernel_neon_end();
	} else {
		/* Fallback C code */
	}

[...]

Cheers
---Dave

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  parent reply index

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-01-06  1:55 Lingyan Huang
2019-01-06  8:26 ` Ard Biesheuvel
     [not found]   ` <9129b882-60f3-8046-0cb9-e0b2452a118d@huawei.com>
2019-01-08 13:54     ` Will Deacon
2019-01-09  2:03       ` huanglingyan (A)
2019-01-10  4:08         ` 胡海
2019-01-10  8:14           ` huanglingyan (A)
2019-01-16 16:46         ` Will Deacon
2019-01-18  1:07           ` huanglingyan (A)
2019-01-18 11:14             ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-02-12  2:26               ` huanglingyan (A)
2019-02-12  7:07                 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-02-13  8:42                   ` huanglingyan (A)
2019-02-13  9:15                     ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-02-13 17:55                       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-02-14  9:57                         ` huanglingyan (A)
2019-02-18  8:49                           ` huanglingyan (A)
2019-02-18  9:03                             ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-01-09 14:58 ` Dave Martin [this message]
2019-01-10  8:03   ` huanglingyan (A)
2019-01-10 13:53     ` Dave Martin
     [not found] <1f065749-6676-6489-14ae-fdcfeeb3389c@huawei.com>
2019-01-07  6:11 ` huanglingyan (A)

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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=20190109142513.GA3554@e103592.cambridge.arm.com \
    --to=dave.martin@arm.com \
    --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=huanglingyan2@huawei.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /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

Linux-ARM-Kernel Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/0 linux-arm-kernel/git/0.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/1 linux-arm-kernel/git/1.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-arm-kernel linux-arm-kernel/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel \
		linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org infradead-linux-arm-kernel@archiver.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-arm-kernel

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox