From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruce Richardson Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] hash: add fallback to software CRC32 implementation Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:16:14 +0000 Message-ID: <20141119101614.GA6532@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <1409724351-23786-1-git-send-email-e_zhumabekov@sts.kz> <20141118144138.GB32375@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <546B607B.9030808@sts.kz> <20141118160005.GC32375@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <546B7E2D.7050705@sts.kz> <20141118174619.GE32375@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20141118175226.GC5840@bricha3-MOBL3> <20141118213624.GF32375@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" To: Neil Horman Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141118213624.GF32375-B26myB8xz7F8NnZeBjwnZQMhkBWG/bsMQH7oEaQurus@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 04:36:24PM -0500, Neil Horman wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 05:52:27PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:46:19PM -0500, Neil Horman wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:13:17PM +0600, Yerden Zhumabekov wrote: > > > >=20 > > > > 18.11.2014 22:00, Neil Horman =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > > > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 09:06:35PM +0600, Yerden Zhumabekov wro= te: > > > > >> 18.11.2014 20:41, Neil Horman =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > > > > >>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 08:03:40PM +0600, Yerden Zhumabekov w= rote: > > > > >>>> /** > > > > >>>> * Use single crc32 instruction to perform a hash on a 4 by= te value. > > > > >>>> + * Fall back to software crc32 implementation in case SSE4.= 2 is > > > > >>>> + * not supported > > > > >>>> * > > > > >>>> * @param data > > > > >>>> * Data to perform hash on. > > > > >>>> @@ -376,11 +413,18 @@ crc32c_2words(uint64_t data, uint32_t = init_val) > > > > >>>> static inline uint32_t > > > > >>>> rte_hash_crc_4byte(uint32_t data, uint32_t init_val) > > > > >>>> { > > > > >>>> - return _mm_crc32_u32(init_val, data); > > > > >>>> +#ifdef RTE_MACHINE_CPUFLAG_SSE4_2 > > > > >>>> + if (likely(crc32_alg =3D=3D CRC32_SSE42)) > > > > >>>> + return _mm_crc32_u32(init_val, data); > > > > >>>> +#endif > > > > >>> you don't really need these ifdefs here anymore given that yo= u have a > > > > >>> constructor to do the algorithm selection. In fact you need = to remove them, in > > > > >>> the event you build on a system that doesn't support SSE42, b= ut run on a system > > > > >>> that does. > > > > >> Originally, I thought so as well. I wrote the code without the= se ifdefs, > > > > >> but it didn't compile on my machine which doesn't support SSE4= .2. Error > > > > >> was triggered by nmmintrin.h which has a check for respective = GCC > > > > >> extension. So I think these ifdefs are indeed required. > > > > >> > > > > > You need to edit the makefile so that the compiler gets passed = the option > > > > > -msse42. That way it will know to emit sse42 instructions. It = will also allow > > > > > you to remove the ifdef from the include file > > > >=20 > > > > In this case, I guess there are two options: > > > > 1) modify all makefiles which use librte_hash > > > > 2) move all function bodies from rte_hash_crc.h to separate modul= e, > > > > leaving prototype definitions there only. > > > >=20 > > > > Everybody's up for the second option? :) > > > >=20 > > > Crud, you're right, I didn't think about the header inclusion issue= . Is it > > > worth adding the jump to enable the dynamic hash selection? > > > Neil > >=20 > > Maybe for cases where SSE4.2 is not currently available, i.e. for gen= eric builds. > > For builds where we have hardware support confirmed at compile time, = just use > > the function from the header file. > > Does that make sense? > >=20 > I'm not certain of that, as I don't think anything can be 'confirmed' a= t compile > time. I.e. just because you have sse42 at compile time doesn't guarant= ee you > have it at run time with a DSO. If you have these as macros, you need = to enable > sse42 whereever you include the file so that the intrinsic works proper= ly. Well, if you compile with sse42 at compile time, the compiler is free to = insert sse4 instructions at any place it feels like, irrespective of whether or = not you use SSE4 intrinsics, so I would never expect such a DSO to work on a syst= em without SSE42 support. >=20 > an alternate option would be to not use the intrinsic, and craft some e= xplicit > __asm__ statement that executes the right sse42 instructions. That way= the asm > is directly emitted, without requiring the -msse42 flag at all, and it = will just > work in all the files that call it. >=20 I really don't like that approach. I think using intrinsics is much more=20 maintainable. /Bruce