From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org,
Zhangshaokun <zhangshaokun@hisilicon.com>,
"huanglingyan \(A\)" <huanglingyan2@huawei.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, steve.capper@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: do_csum: implement accelerated scalar version
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 10:47:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190515094704.GC24357@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <41b30c72-c1c5-14b2-b2e1-3507d552830d@arm.com>
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 07:18:22PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 12/04/2019 10:52, Will Deacon wrote:
> > I'm waiting for Robin to come back with numbers for a C implementation.
> >
> > Robin -- did you get anywhere with that?
>
> Still not what I would call finished, but where I've got so far (besides an
> increasingly elaborate test rig) is as below - it still wants some unrolling
> in the middle to really fly (and actual testing on BE), but the worst-case
> performance already equals or just beats this asm version on Cortex-A53 with
> GCC 7 (by virtue of being alignment-insensitive and branchless except for
> the loop). Unfortunately, the advantage of C code being instrumentable does
> also come around to bite me...
Is there any interest from anybody in spinning a proper patch out of this?
Shaokun?
Will
> /* Looks dumb, but generates nice-ish code */
> static u64 accumulate(u64 sum, u64 data)
> {
> __uint128_t tmp = (__uint128_t)sum + data;
> return tmp + (tmp >> 64);
> }
>
> unsigned int do_csum_c(const unsigned char *buff, int len)
> {
> unsigned int offset, shift, sum, count;
> u64 data, *ptr;
> u64 sum64 = 0;
>
> offset = (unsigned long)buff & 0x7;
> /*
> * This is to all intents and purposes safe, since rounding down cannot
> * result in a different page or cache line being accessed, and @buff
> * should absolutely not be pointing to anything read-sensitive.
> * It does, however, piss off KASAN...
> */
> ptr = (u64 *)(buff - offset);
> shift = offset * 8;
>
> /*
> * Head: zero out any excess leading bytes. Shifting back by the same
> * amount should be at least as fast as any other way of handling the
> * odd/even alignment, and means we can ignore it until the very end.
> */
> data = *ptr++;
> #ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN
> data = (data >> shift) << shift;
> #else
> data = (data << shift) >> shift;
> #endif
> count = 8 - offset;
>
> /* Body: straightforward aligned loads from here on... */
> //TODO: fancy stuff with larger strides and uint128s?
> while(len > count) {
> sum64 = accumulate(sum64, data);
> data = *ptr++;
> count += 8;
> }
> /*
> * Tail: zero any over-read bytes similarly to the head, again
> * preserving odd/even alignment.
> */
> shift = (count - len) * 8;
> #ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN
> data = (data << shift) >> shift;
> #else
> data = (data >> shift) << shift;
> #endif
> sum64 = accumulate(sum64, data);
>
> /* Finally, folding */
> sum64 += (sum64 >> 32) | (sum64 << 32);
> sum = sum64 >> 32;
> sum += (sum >> 16) | (sum << 16);
> if (offset & 1)
> return (u16)swab32(sum);
>
> return sum >> 16;
> }
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc: Zhangshaokun <zhangshaokun@hisilicon.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org,
"huanglingyan (A)" <huanglingyan2@huawei.com>,
steve.capper@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: do_csum: implement accelerated scalar version
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 10:47:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190515094704.GC24357@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <41b30c72-c1c5-14b2-b2e1-3507d552830d@arm.com>
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 07:18:22PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 12/04/2019 10:52, Will Deacon wrote:
> > I'm waiting for Robin to come back with numbers for a C implementation.
> >
> > Robin -- did you get anywhere with that?
>
> Still not what I would call finished, but where I've got so far (besides an
> increasingly elaborate test rig) is as below - it still wants some unrolling
> in the middle to really fly (and actual testing on BE), but the worst-case
> performance already equals or just beats this asm version on Cortex-A53 with
> GCC 7 (by virtue of being alignment-insensitive and branchless except for
> the loop). Unfortunately, the advantage of C code being instrumentable does
> also come around to bite me...
Is there any interest from anybody in spinning a proper patch out of this?
Shaokun?
Will
> /* Looks dumb, but generates nice-ish code */
> static u64 accumulate(u64 sum, u64 data)
> {
> __uint128_t tmp = (__uint128_t)sum + data;
> return tmp + (tmp >> 64);
> }
>
> unsigned int do_csum_c(const unsigned char *buff, int len)
> {
> unsigned int offset, shift, sum, count;
> u64 data, *ptr;
> u64 sum64 = 0;
>
> offset = (unsigned long)buff & 0x7;
> /*
> * This is to all intents and purposes safe, since rounding down cannot
> * result in a different page or cache line being accessed, and @buff
> * should absolutely not be pointing to anything read-sensitive.
> * It does, however, piss off KASAN...
> */
> ptr = (u64 *)(buff - offset);
> shift = offset * 8;
>
> /*
> * Head: zero out any excess leading bytes. Shifting back by the same
> * amount should be at least as fast as any other way of handling the
> * odd/even alignment, and means we can ignore it until the very end.
> */
> data = *ptr++;
> #ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN
> data = (data >> shift) << shift;
> #else
> data = (data << shift) >> shift;
> #endif
> count = 8 - offset;
>
> /* Body: straightforward aligned loads from here on... */
> //TODO: fancy stuff with larger strides and uint128s?
> while(len > count) {
> sum64 = accumulate(sum64, data);
> data = *ptr++;
> count += 8;
> }
> /*
> * Tail: zero any over-read bytes similarly to the head, again
> * preserving odd/even alignment.
> */
> shift = (count - len) * 8;
> #ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN
> data = (data << shift) >> shift;
> #else
> data = (data >> shift) << shift;
> #endif
> sum64 = accumulate(sum64, data);
>
> /* Finally, folding */
> sum64 += (sum64 >> 32) | (sum64 << 32);
> sum = sum64 >> 32;
> sum += (sum >> 16) | (sum << 16);
> if (offset & 1)
> return (u16)swab32(sum);
>
> return sum >> 16;
> }
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-15 9:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-18 23:08 [PATCH] arm64: do_csum: implement accelerated scalar version Ard Biesheuvel
2019-02-18 23:08 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-02-19 15:08 ` Ilias Apalodimas
2019-02-19 15:08 ` Ilias Apalodimas
2019-02-28 14:16 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-02-28 14:16 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-02-28 15:13 ` Robin Murphy
2019-02-28 15:13 ` Robin Murphy
2019-02-28 15:28 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-02-28 15:28 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-04-12 2:31 ` Zhangshaokun
2019-04-12 2:31 ` Zhangshaokun
2019-04-12 9:52 ` Will Deacon
2019-04-12 9:52 ` Will Deacon
2019-04-15 18:18 ` Robin Murphy
2019-04-15 18:18 ` Robin Murphy
2019-05-15 9:47 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2019-05-15 9:47 ` Will Deacon
2019-05-15 10:15 ` David Laight
2019-05-15 10:15 ` David Laight
2019-05-15 10:57 ` Robin Murphy
2019-05-15 10:57 ` Robin Murphy
2019-05-15 11:13 ` David Laight
2019-05-15 11:13 ` David Laight
2019-05-15 12:39 ` Robin Murphy
2019-05-15 12:39 ` Robin Murphy
2019-05-15 13:54 ` David Laight
2019-05-15 13:54 ` David Laight
2019-05-15 11:02 ` Robin Murphy
2019-05-15 11:02 ` Robin Murphy
2019-05-16 3:14 ` Zhangshaokun
2019-05-16 3:14 ` Zhangshaokun
2019-08-15 16:46 ` Will Deacon
2019-08-15 16:46 ` Will Deacon
2019-08-16 8:15 ` Shaokun Zhang
2019-08-16 8:15 ` Shaokun Zhang
2019-08-16 14:55 ` Robin Murphy
2019-08-16 14:55 ` Robin Murphy
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=20190515094704.GC24357@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=huanglingyan2@huawei.com \
--cc=ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=steve.capper@arm.com \
--cc=zhangshaokun@hisilicon.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
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.