From: Artur Skawina <art.08.09@gmail.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] block-sha1: improved SHA1 hashing
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:55:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A7B5F4C.30102@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0908061502570.3390@localhost.localdomain>
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Artur Skawina wrote:
>> Does this make any difference for you? For me it's the best one so far
>> (the linusas2 number clearly shows that for me the register renaming does
>> nothing; other than that the functions should be very similar)
>
> Nope. If anything, it's bit slower, but it might be in the noise. I
> generally got 330MB/s with my "cpp renaming" on Nehalem (32-bit - the
> 64-bit numbers are ~400MB/s), but with this I got 325MB/s twice in a row,
> which matches the linusas2 numbers pretty exactly.
>
> But it seems to make a big difference for you.
It seems to do well on P2 and P4 here, if it works for core2 this could
be a good generic candidate. It only does 62% on an Atom, but the best C
version so far exceeds it only by ~2%.
> Btw, _what_ P4 do you have (Northwood or Prescott)?
northwood
> The Intel optimization manuals very much talk about avoiding rotates. And
> they mention "with a CPUID signature corresponding to family 15 and model
> encoding of 0, 1, or 2" specifically as being longer latency. That's
> basically pre-prescott P4, I think.
cpu family : 15
model : 2
model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz
stepping : 5
> Anyway, on P4 I think you have two double-speed integer issue ports (ie
> max four ops per cycle), but only one of them takes a rotate, and only in
> the first half of the cycle (ie just one shift per cycle).
>
> And afaik, that is actually the _improved_ state in Prescott. The older
> P4's didn't have a full shifter unit at all, iirc: shifts were "complex
> instructions" in Northwood and weren't even single-clock.
>
> In Core 2, I think there's still just one shifter unit, but at least it's
> as fast as all the other units. So P4 really does stand out as sucking as
> far as shifts are concerned, and if you have an older P4, it will be even
> worse.
hmm, I might be able to try it on some old willamette, but my prescott's
mobo died, so i can't verify that right now.
I'll upload an updated sha1bench, maybe somebody else feels like checking...
artur
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-06 22:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-06 15:13 [PATCH 0/7] block-sha1: improved SHA1 hashing Linus Torvalds
2009-08-06 15:15 ` [PATCH 1/7] block-sha1: add new optimized C 'block-sha1' routines Linus Torvalds
2009-08-06 15:16 ` [PATCH 2/7] block-sha1: try to use rol/ror appropriately Linus Torvalds
2009-08-06 15:18 ` [PATCH 3/7] block-sha1: make the 'ntohl()' part of the first SHA1 loop Linus Torvalds
2009-08-06 15:20 ` [PATCH 4/7] block-sha1: re-use the temporary array as we calculate the SHA1 Linus Torvalds
2009-08-06 15:22 ` [PATCH 5/7] block-sha1: macroize the rounds a bit further Linus Torvalds
2009-08-06 15:24 ` [PATCH 6/7] block-sha1: Use '(B&C)+(D&(B^C))' instead of '(B&C)|(D&(B|C))' in round 3 Linus Torvalds
2009-08-06 15:25 ` [PATCH 7/7] block-sha1: get rid of redundant 'lenW' context Linus Torvalds
2009-08-06 18:25 ` [PATCH 2/7] block-sha1: try to use rol/ror appropriately Bert Wesarg
2009-08-06 17:22 ` [PATCH 0/7] block-sha1: improved SHA1 hashing Artur Skawina
2009-08-06 18:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-08-06 19:10 ` Artur Skawina
2009-08-06 19:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-08-06 20:08 ` Artur Skawina
2009-08-06 20:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-08-06 21:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-08-06 21:39 ` Artur Skawina
2009-08-06 21:52 ` Artur Skawina
2009-08-06 22:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-08-06 22:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-08-06 23:19 ` Artur Skawina
2009-08-06 23:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-08-06 22:55 ` Artur Skawina [this message]
2009-08-06 23:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-08-06 23:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-08-07 0:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-08-07 1:30 ` Artur Skawina
2009-08-07 1:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-08-07 0:53 ` Artur Skawina
2009-08-07 2:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-08-07 4:16 ` Artur Skawina
[not found] ` <alpine.LFD.2.01.0908071614310.3288@localhost.localdomain>
[not found] ` <4A7CBD28.6070306@gmail.com>
[not found] ` <4A7CBF47.9000903@gmail.com>
[not found] ` <alpine.LFD.2.01.0908071700290.3288@localhost.localdomain>
[not found] ` <4A7CC380.3070008@gmail.com>
2009-08-08 4:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-08-08 5:34 ` Artur Skawina
2009-08-08 17:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-08-08 18:12 ` Artur Skawina
2009-08-08 22:58 ` Artur Skawina
2009-08-08 23:36 ` Artur Skawina
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-08-07 7:36 George Spelvin
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=4A7B5F4C.30102@gmail.com \
--to=art.08.09@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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).