linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@us.ibm.com>
To: Bob Pearson <rpearson@systemfabricworks.com>
Cc: "'Herbert Xu'" <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
	"'Andrew Morton'" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"'Theodore Tso'" <tytso@mit.edu>,
	"'Joakim Tjernlund'" <joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se>,
	"'linux-kernel'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"'Andreas Dilger'" <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
	"'linux-crypto'" <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
	"'linux-fsdevel'" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"'Mingming Cao'" <cmm@us.ibm.com>,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/14] crc32: Select an algorithm via kconfig
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:32:28 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111213063228.GN7137@tux1.beaverton.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <02ea01ccb923$48193ff0$d84bbfd0$@systemfabricworks.com>

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 05:10:45PM -0600, Bob Pearson wrote:
> That choice was for Joakim who measured better performance on his 32 bit PPC
> platform with "by 4".

Ok.  On my 1.33GHz PowerBook I get ~255MB/s with slice by 4 and ~270MB/s with
slice by 8.  I think it's a PPC 7447, and definitely 32-bit.  In any case, it
reports having 32K of L1D cache.

--D
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Darrick J. Wong [mailto:djwong@us.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:59 PM
> > To: Herbert Xu; Bob Pearson
> > Cc: Andrew Morton; Theodore Tso; Joakim Tjernlund; linux-kernel; Andreas
> > Dilger; linux-crypto; linux-fsdevel; Mingming Cao;
> linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/14] crc32: Select an algorithm via kconfig
> > 
> > On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 06:36:46PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 08:25:05AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 12:15:17PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > > Allow the kernel builder to choose a crc32* algorithm for the
> kernel.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@us.ibm.com>
> > > >
> > > > I don't like this at all.  How do you expect distros or indeed
> > > > anyone to make this choice? For generic C implementations like
> > > > this we should only have one, and not many.
> > >
> > > Slice-by-8 should be picked automatically if the builder doesn't
> explicitly
> > > pick another one.  The other choices are provided for people who want a
> > slimmer
> > > cache footprint.  I guess I could make the Kconfig file a bit more
> explicit
> > > about slice-by-8 being default, or I guess we could just ignore this one
> > patch
> > > and thereby keeping us with the old method where anyone who wants the
> > slimmer
> > > implementations patches the #defines.
> > 
> > Ok, here's a patch that makes it more explicit that sliceby8 is the
> default.
> > I expect distros and anyone else to simply hit <Enter>.  The only people
> who
> > should do otherwise are people who know they are building for machines
> > that
> > have small cache sizes such that the crc table fights for cache lines with
> the
> > data being checksummed.
> > 
> > I made a quick survey of CPU L1 cache quantities:
> > 
> > All Intel CPUs since the Pentium MMX have > 8KiB of L1.
> > All AMD CPUs since the K5 have had > 8KiB of L1.
> > Most SPARC64 CPUs except the UltraSparc T1 and T2 CPUs have > 8KiB of L1.
> > Most PowerPC CPUs since the 601 seem to have > 8KiB of L1.
> > All IBM POWER CPUs since at least the POWER2 have had > 8KiB of L1.
> > There are too many different ARM cores for me to track.   My smartphones
> > and
> > embedded ARM controllers all have > 8KIB of L1, but that's not enough to
> > generalize.
> > 
> > While I might've been tempted to agree with Herbert and hardwire the code
> > to
> > use slice by 8, there are enough CPUs out there that *could* have
> too-small
> > L1
> > caches that I'm not comfortable with _removing_ the Kconfig option to use
> a
> > slimmer algorithm.  I can't gate the decision on 64-bitness either, since
> I've
> > seen plenty of i386 CPUs that benefit from slice by 8, and the UltraSparc
> T2 is
> > a 64-bit processor that seems likely to suffer cache thrashing.
> > 
> > I think having a configurable menu that steers people towards slice by 8
> is
> > fine.  Bob, was there a reason for picking slice by 4 for 32-bit machines?
> > 
> > D
> > ---
> > Allow the kernel builder to choose a crc32* algorithm for the kernel.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@us.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > 
> >  lib/Kconfig     |   43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  lib/crc32defs.h |   18 ++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/lib/Kconfig b/lib/Kconfig
> > index cfddafc..029c0e3 100644
> > --- a/lib/Kconfig
> > +++ b/lib/Kconfig
> > @@ -70,6 +70,49 @@ config CRC32_SELFTEST
> >  	  and crc32_be over byte strings with random alignment and length
> >  	  and computes the total elapsed time and number of bytes
> > processed.
> > 
> > +choice
> > +	prompt "CRC32 implementation"
> > +	depends on CRC32
> > +	default CRC32_SLICEBY8
> > +
> > +config CRC32_SLICEBY8
> > +	bool "Slice by 8 bytes"
> > +	help
> > +	  Calculate checksum 8 bytes at a time with a clever slicing
> algorithm.
> > +	  This is the fastest algorithm, but comes with a 8KiB lookup table.
> > +	  Most modern processors have enough cache to hold this table
> > without
> > +	  thrashing the cache.
> > +
> > +	  This is the default implementation choice.  Choose this one unless
> > +	  you have a good reason not to.
> > +
> > +config CRC32_SLICEBY4
> > +	bool "Slice by 4 bytes"
> > +	help
> > +	  Calculate checksum 4 bytes at a time with a clever slicing
> algorithm.
> > +	  This is a bit slower than slice by 8, but has a smaller 4KiB
> lookup
> > +	  table.
> > +
> > +	  Only choose this option if you know what you are doing.
> > +
> > +config CRC32_SARWATE
> > +	bool "Sarwate's Algorithm (one byte at a time)"
> > +	help
> > +	  Calculate checksum a byte at a time using Sarwate's algorithm.
> This
> > +	  is not particularly fast, but has a small 256 byte lookup table.
> > +
> > +	  Only choose this option if you know what you are doing.
> > +
> > +config CRC32_BIT
> > +	bool "Classic Algorithm (one bit at a time)"
> > +	help
> > +	  Calculate checksum one bit at a time.  This is VERY slow, but has
> > +	  no lookup table.  This is provided as a debugging option.
> > +
> > +	  Only choose this option if you are debugging crc32.
> > +
> > +endchoice
> > +
> >  config CRC7
> >  	tristate "CRC7 functions"
> >  	help
> > diff --git a/lib/crc32defs.h b/lib/crc32defs.h
> > index 6fd1917..64cba2c 100644
> > --- a/lib/crc32defs.h
> > +++ b/lib/crc32defs.h
> > @@ -13,6 +13,24 @@
> >   */
> >  #define CRC32C_POLY_LE 0x82F63B78
> > 
> > +/* Try to choose an implementation variant via Kconfig */
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CRC32_SLICEBY8
> > +# define CRC_LE_BITS 64
> > +# define CRC_BE_BITS 64
> > +#endif
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CRC32_SLICEBY4
> > +# define CRC_LE_BITS 32
> > +# define CRC_BE_BITS 32
> > +#endif
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CRC32_SARWATE
> > +# define CRC_LE_BITS 8
> > +# define CRC_BE_BITS 8
> > +#endif
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CRC32_BIT
> > +# define CRC_LE_BITS 1
> > +# define CRC_BE_BITS 1
> > +#endif
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * How many bits at a time to use.  Valid values are 1, 2, 4, 8, 32 and
> 64.
> >   * For less performance-sensitive, use 4 or 8 to save table size.
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2011-12-13  6:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-12-01 20:13 [PATCH v5.2 00/14] crc32c: Add faster algorithm and self-test code Darrick J. Wong
2011-12-01 20:13 ` [PATCH 01/14] crc32: removed two instances of trailing whitespaces Darrick J. Wong
2011-12-01 20:13 ` [PATCH 02/14] crc32: Move long comment about crc32 fundamentals to Documentation/ Darrick J. Wong
2011-12-01 20:14 ` [PATCH 03/14] crc32: Simplify unit test code Darrick J. Wong
2011-12-01 20:14 ` [PATCH 04/14] crc32: Speed up memory table access on powerpc Darrick J. Wong
2011-12-01 20:14 ` [PATCH 05/14] crc32: Miscellaneous cleanups Darrick J. Wong
2011-12-01 20:14 ` [PATCH 06/14] crc32: Fix mixing of endian-specific types Darrick J. Wong
2011-12-01 20:14 ` [PATCH 07/14] crc32: Make CRC_*_BITS definition correspond to actual bit counts Darrick J. Wong
2011-12-01 20:14 ` [PATCH 08/14] crc32: Add slice-by-8 algorithm to existing code Darrick J. Wong
2011-12-01 20:14 ` [PATCH 09/14] crc32: Optimize loop counter for x86 Darrick J. Wong
2011-12-01 20:14 ` [PATCH 10/14] crc32: Add note about this patchset to crc32.c Darrick J. Wong
2011-12-01 20:14 ` [PATCH 11/14] crc32: Bolt on crc32c Darrick J. Wong
2011-12-01 20:15 ` [PATCH 12/14] crypto: crc32c should use library implementation Darrick J. Wong
2011-12-01 20:15 ` [PATCH 13/14] crc32: Add self-test code for crc32c Darrick J. Wong
2011-12-01 20:15 ` [PATCH 14/14] crc32: Select an algorithm via kconfig Darrick J. Wong
2011-12-02  0:25   ` Herbert Xu
2011-12-03  2:36     ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-12-12 22:58       ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-12-12 23:10         ` Bob Pearson
2011-12-13  6:32           ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2011-12-13  8:27             ` Joakim Tjernlund
2011-12-13 18:36               ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-12-01 20:20 ` [PATCH v5.2 00/14] crc32c: Add faster algorithm and self-test code Joel Becker
2011-12-01 20:31   ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-12-02  0:23     ` Herbert Xu
2011-12-03  2:30       ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-12-03 11:00         ` Herbert Xu
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-01-07  5:50 [PATCH v5.3 " Darrick J. Wong
2012-01-07  5:52 ` [PATCH 14/14] crc32: Select an algorithm via kconfig Darrick J. Wong
2011-11-28 22:36 [PATCH v5.1 00/14] crc32c: Add faster algorithm and self-test code Darrick J. Wong
2011-11-28 22:38 ` [PATCH 14/14] crc32: Select an algorithm via kconfig Darrick J. Wong

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=20111213063228.GN7137@tux1.beaverton.ibm.com \
    --to=djwong@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cmm@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
    --cc=joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se \
    --cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rpearson@systemfabricworks.com \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /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).