From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Noah Goldstein <goldstein.w.n@gmail.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: x86-ml <x86@kernel.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/misc for 6.5
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 14:44:14 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1982e4b4-3858-d456-6c90-92782b95726a@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wghuOwXtMH9u7RAW694BOwf_Q9TeWR2v=GgLy0gjTfu4A@mail.gmail.com>
On 6/27/2023 1:11 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 at 04:00, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
>>
>> - Improve csum_partial()'s performance
>
> Honestly, looking at that patch, my reaction is "why did it get
> unrolled in 64-byte chunks, if 40 bytes is the magic value"?
>
> Particularly when there is then that "do a carry op each 32 bytes to
> make 32-byte chunks independent and increase ILP". So even the 64-byte
> case isn't *actuall* doing a 64-byte unrolling, it's really doing two
> 32-byte unrollings in parallel.
>
> So you have three "magic" values, and the only one that really matters
> is likely the 40-byte one.
>
> Yes, yes, 64 bytes is the usual cacheline size, and is "traditional"
> for unrolling. But there's nothing really magical about it here.
>
> End result: wouldn't it have been nice to just do 40-byte chunks, and
> make the 64-byte "two overlapping 32-byte chunks" be two of the
> 40-byte chunks.
>
> Something like the (ENTIRELY UNTESTED!) attached patch?
>
> Again: this is *not* tested. I took a quick look at the generated
> assembly, and it looked roughly like what I expected it to look like,
> but it may be complete garbage.
>
> I added a couple of "likely()" things just because it made the
> generated asm look more natural (ie it followed the order of the
> source code there), they are otherwise questionable annotations.
>
> Finally: did I already mention that this is completely untested?
fwiw long flights and pools have a relation; I made a userspace testbench
for this some time ago: https://github.com/fenrus75/csum_partial
in case one would actually WANT to test ;)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-27 21:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-27 11:00 [GIT PULL] x86/misc for 6.5 Borislav Petkov
2023-06-27 20:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-06-27 20:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-06-27 20:38 ` Borislav Petkov
2023-06-27 20:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-06-27 21:11 ` Borislav Petkov
2023-06-27 21:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-06-27 21:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-06-27 21:44 ` Arjan van de Ven [this message]
2023-06-27 22:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-06-27 22:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-06-27 22:50 ` Arjan van de Ven
2023-06-27 23:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-06-27 23:05 ` Arjan van de Ven
2023-06-29 5:29 ` Herbert Xu
2023-06-27 20:52 ` pr-tracker-bot
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=1982e4b4-3858-d456-6c90-92782b95726a@linux.intel.com \
--to=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=goldstein.w.n@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).