From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: <davem@davemloft.net>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
<kernel-team@fb.com>, <tglx@linutronix.de>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
<hpa@zytor.com>, <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: Implement fast csum_partial for x86_64
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 12:05:54 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87wprmean1.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1452019261-449449-1-git-send-email-tom@herbertland.com> (Tom Herbert's message of "Tue, 5 Jan 2016 10:41:01 -0800")
Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> writes:
> Also, we don't do anything special for alignment, unaligned
> accesses on x86 do not appear to be a performance issue.
This is not true on Atom CPUs.
Also on most CPUs there is still a larger penalty when crossing
cache lines.
> Verified correctness by testing arbitrary length buffer filled with
> random data. For each buffer I compared the computed checksum
> using the original algorithm for each possible alignment (0-7 bytes).
>
> Checksum performance:
>
> Isolating old and new implementation for some common cases:
You forgot to state the CPU. The results likely depend heavily
on the micro architecture.
The original C code was optimized for K8 FWIW.
Overall your assembler looks similar to the C code, except for the jump
table. Jump table has the disadvantage that it is much harder to branch
predict, with a large penalty if it's mispredicted.
I would expect it to be slower for cases where the length
changes frequently. Did you benchmark that case?
-Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-06 20:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-05 18:41 [PATCH v2 net-next] net: Implement fast csum_partial for x86_64 Tom Herbert
2016-01-05 22:18 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-01-06 1:10 ` H. Peter Anvin
2016-01-06 3:02 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-01-06 10:16 ` David Laight
2016-01-06 14:25 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-01-06 14:49 ` David Laight
2016-01-06 15:03 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-01-05 23:35 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-01-06 3:21 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-01-06 20:05 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2016-01-07 1:52 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-01-07 2:36 ` Tom Herbert
2016-01-07 2:43 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
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=87wprmean1.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com \
--to=andi@firstfloor.org \
--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.