public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: 'Eric Dumazet' <edumazet@google.com>,
	Noah Goldstein <goldstein.w.n@gmail.com>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
	"alexanderduyck@fb.com" <alexanderduyck@fb.com>,
	"kbuild-all@lists.01.org" <kbuild-all@lists.01.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-um@lists.infradead.org" <linux-um@lists.infradead.org>,
	"lkp@intel.com" <lkp@intel.com>,
	"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [tip:x86/core 1/1] arch/x86/um/../lib/csum-partial_64.c:98:12: error: implicit declaration of function 'load_unaligned_zeropad'
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 17:18:34 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4dbf7f8d095b46a8a45e285d0ec8f8b0@AcuMS.aculab.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANn89iLtZmSyBYtvJ0nxdrM3CKyf3D9y9AWBC4GVbPCxtjOROw@mail.gmail.com>

From: Eric Dumazet
> Sent: 25 November 2021 04:01
...
> > The outputs seem to match if `buff` is aligned to 64-bit. Still see
> > difference with `csum_fold(csum_partial())` if `buff` is not 64-bit aligned.
> >
> > The comment at the top says it's "best" to have `buff` 64-bit aligned but
> > the code logic seems meant to support the misaligned case so not
> > sure if it's an issue.
> >
> 
> It is an issue in general, not in standard cases because network
> headers are aligned.
> 
> I think it came when I folded csum_partial() and do_csum(), I forgot
> to ror() the seed.
> 
> I suspect the following would help:
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/csum-partial_64.c b/arch/x86/lib/csum-partial_64.c
> index 1eb8f2d11f7c785be624eba315fe9ca7989fd56d..ee7b0e7a6055bcbef42d22f7e1d8f52ddbd6be6d
> 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/lib/csum-partial_64.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/lib/csum-partial_64.c
> @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ __wsum csum_partial(const void *buff, int len, __wsum sum)
>         if (unlikely(odd)) {
>                 if (unlikely(len == 0))
>                         return sum;
> +               temp64 = ror32((__force u64)sum, 8);
>                 temp64 += (*(unsigned char *)buff << 8);
>                 len--;
>                 buff++;

You can save an instruction (as if this path matters) by:
			temp64 = sum + *(unsigned char *)buff;
			temp64 <<= 8;
Although that probably falls foul of 64bit shifts being slow.
So maybe just:
			sum += *(unsigned char *)buff;
			temp64 = bswap32(sum);
AFAICT (from a pdf) bswap32() and ror(x, 8) are likely to be
the same speed but may use different execution units.

Intel seem so have managed to slow down ror(x, %cl) to 3 clocks
in sandy bridge - and still not fixed it.
Although the compiler might be making a pigs-breakfast of the
register allocation when you tried setting 'odd = 8'.

Weeks can be spent fiddling with this code :-(

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-11-26 17:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-11-17 18:45 [tip:x86/core 1/1] arch/x86/um/../lib/csum-partial_64.c:98:12: error: implicit declaration of function 'load_unaligned_zeropad' kernel test robot
2021-11-17 18:55 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-17 19:40   ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-18 16:00     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-18 16:26       ` Johannes Berg
2021-11-18 16:57         ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-18 17:02           ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25  1:58           ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-25  2:56             ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25  3:41               ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-25  4:00                 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25  4:08                   ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25  4:20                     ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25  4:56                       ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-25  5:09                         ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-25  6:32                           ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25  6:45                             ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25  6:49                               ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-25  6:47                             ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-26 17:18                   ` David Laight [this message]
2021-11-26 18:09                     ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-26 22:41                       ` David Laight
2021-11-26 23:04                         ` Noah Goldstein
2021-11-28 18:30                           ` David Laight
2021-12-29  6:00       ` Al Viro
2022-01-31  2:29         ` Al Viro

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=4dbf7f8d095b46a8a45e285d0ec8f8b0@AcuMS.aculab.com \
    --to=david.laight@aculab.com \
    --cc=alexanderduyck@fb.com \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=goldstein.w.n@gmail.com \
    --cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
    --cc=kbuild-all@lists.01.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-um@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=lkp@intel.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.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