Re: [GIT PULL] CRC updates for 6.14

Eric Biggers
2025-01-23T18:18:20Z

On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 09:07:44AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 11:46:18PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I'm tempted to just provide slice-by-1 (a.k.a. byte-by-byte) as the
> > only generic CRC32 implementation. The generic code has become increasingly
> > irrelevant due to the arch-optimized code existing. The arch-optimized code
> > tends to be 10 to 100 times faster on long messages.
>
> Yeah, that's my intuition as well; I would think the CPU's that
> don't have a CRC32 optimization instruction(s) would probably be the
> most sensitive to dcache thrashing.
>
> But given that Geert ran into this on m68k (I assume), maybe we could
> have him benchmark the various crc32 generic implementation to see if
> we is the best for him? That is, assuming that he cares (which he
> might not. :-).

FWIW, benchmarking the CRC library functions is easy now; just enable
CONFIG_CRC_KUNIT_TEST=y and CONFIG_CRC_BENCHMARK=y.

But, it's just a traditional benchmark that calls the functions in a loop, and
doesn't account for dcache thrashing. It's exactly the sort of benchmark I
mentioned doesn't tell the whole story about the drawbacks of using a huge
table. So focusing only on microbenchmarks of slice-by-n generally leads to a
value n > 1 seeming optimal --- potentially as high as n=16 depending on the
CPU, but really old CPUs like m68k should need much less. So the rationale of
choosing "slice-by-1" in the kernel would be to consider the reduced dcache use
and code size, and the fact that arch-optimized code is usually used instead
these days anyway, to be more important than microbenchmark results. (And also
the other CRC variants in the kernel like CRC64, CRC-T10DIF, CRC16, etc. already
just have slice-by-1, so this would make CRC32 consistent with that.)

- Eric