From: Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@synopsys.com>
To: "mans@mansr.com" <mans@mansr.com>
Cc: "shemminger@linux-foundation.org"
<shemminger@linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com" <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>,
"linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org>,
"rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk" <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>,
"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"mingo@elte.hu" <mingo@elte.hu>, "nico@cam.org" <nico@cam.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] __div64_32: implement division by multiplication for 32-bit arches
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:05:44 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1446123944.3203.8.camel@synopsys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <yw1xr3kddegu.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com>
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8", Size: 3398 bytes --]
Hi mans,
On Thu, 2015-10-29 at 12:52 +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@synopsys.com> writes:
>
> > Existing default implementation of __div64_32() for 32-bit arches unfolds
> > into huge routine with tons of arithmetics like +, -, * and all of them
> > in loops. That leads to obvious performance degradation if do_div() is
> > frequently used.
> >
> > Good example is extensive TCP/IP traffic.
> > That's what I'm getting with perf out of iperf3:
> > -------------->8--------------
> > 30.05% iperf3 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] copy_from_iter
> > 11.77% iperf3 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __div64_32
> > 5.44% iperf3 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] memset
> > 5.32% iperf3 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] stmmac_xmit
> > 2.70% iperf3 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] skb_segment
> > 2.56% iperf3 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] tcp_ack
> > -------------->8--------------
> >
> > do_div() here is mostly used in skb_mstamp_get() to convert nanoseconds
> > received from local_clock() to microseconds used in timestamp.
> > BTW conversion itself is as simple as "/=1000".
> >
> > Fortunately we already have much better __div64_32() for 32-bit ARM.
> > There in case of division by constant preprocessor calculates so-called
> > "magic number" which is later used in multiplications instead of divisions.
> > It's really nice and very optimal but obviously works only for ARM
> > because ARM assembly is involved.
> >
> > Now why don't we extend the same approach to all other 32-bit arches
> > with multiplication part implemented in pure C. With good compiler
> > resulting assembly will be quite close to manually written assembly.
> >
> > And that change implements that.
> >
> > But there's at least 1 problem which I don't know how to solve.
> > Preprocessor magic only happens if __div64_32() is inlined (that's
> > obvious - preprocessor has to know if divider is constant or not).
> >
> > But __div64_32() is already marked as weak function (which in its turn
> > is required to allow some architectures to provide its own optimal
> > implementations). I.e. addition of "inline" for __div64_32() is not an
> > option.
> >
> > So I do want to hear opinions on how to proceed with that patch.
> > Indeed there's the simplest solution - use this implementation only in
> > my architecture of preference (read ARC) but IMHO this change may
> > benefit other architectures as well.
>
> I tried something similar for MIPS a while ago after noticing a similar
> perf report. Adapting Nico's ARM code gave some nice speedups, but only
> when I used MIPS assembly for the long multiplies. Apparently gcc is
> still too stupid to do the sane thing.
Could you please elaborate a little bit on what was a problem with gcc
compared to hand-written asm?
The point is if preprocessor does proper constant propagation then compiler
will need to implement only calculations marked "run-time calculations".
And in its turn those are pretty straight-forward 32-bit + and *.
And at least on ARC I saw with that change perf no longer captures
__div64_32() during iperf and iperf results itself improved for about 10%.
So I'd say advantage is quite noticeable.
-Alexey
ÿôèº{.nÇ+·®+%Ëÿ±éݶ\x17¥wÿº{.nÇ+·¥{±þG«éÿ{ayº\x1dÊÚë,j\a¢f£¢·hïêÿêçz_è®\x03(éÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?¨èÚ&£ø§~á¶iOæ¬z·vØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?I¥
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-29 13:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-28 22:47 [PATCH] __div64_32: implement division by multiplication for 32-bit arches Alexey Brodkin
2015-10-28 23:32 ` Nicolas Pitre
2015-10-29 7:34 ` Alexey Brodkin
2015-10-30 1:26 ` Nicolas Pitre
2015-10-30 5:41 ` Vineet Gupta
2015-10-30 12:41 ` Måns Rullgård
2015-10-30 12:40 ` Måns Rullgård
2015-10-30 15:17 ` Nicolas Pitre
2015-10-30 15:54 ` Alexey Brodkin
2015-10-30 16:55 ` Nicolas Pitre
2015-10-30 17:45 ` Måns Rullgård
2015-11-04 23:46 ` Nicolas Pitre
2015-11-04 23:48 ` Nicolas Pitre
2015-11-05 3:13 ` Vineet Gupta
2015-11-05 5:06 ` Nicolas Pitre
2015-11-04 23:49 ` Måns Rullgård
2015-10-30 14:28 ` Alexey Brodkin
2015-10-29 0:36 ` kbuild test robot
2015-10-29 12:52 ` Måns Rullgård
2015-10-29 13:05 ` Alexey Brodkin [this message]
2015-10-29 13:37 ` Måns Rullgård
2015-10-29 13:31 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-10-29 14:32 ` Alexey Brodkin
2015-10-29 17:09 ` Randy Dunlap
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=1446123944.3203.8.camel@synopsys.com \
--to=alexey.brodkin@synopsys.com \
--cc=Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=mans@mansr.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nico@cam.org \
--cc=rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=shemminger@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