Re: Optimising csum_fold()

[Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 04:55:27PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
> > Sent: 22 November 2022 16:25
> > 
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 01:08:23PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > There are currently 20 copies of csum_fold(), some in C some in assembler.
> > > The default C version (in asm-generic/checksum.h) is pretty horrid.
> > > Some of the asm versions (including x86 and x86-64) aren't much better.
> > >
> > > There are 3 pretty good C versions:
> > >   1:	(~sum - rol32(sum, 16)) >> 16
> > >   2:  ~(sum + rol32(sum, 16)) >> 16
> > >   3:  (u16)~((sum + rol32(sum, 16)) >> 16)
> > > All three are (usually) 4 arithmetic instructions.
> > >
> > > The first two have the advantage that the high bits are zero.
> > > Relevant when the value is being checked rather than set.
> > >
> > > The first one can generate better instruction scheduling (the rotate
> > > and invert can be executed in the same clock).
> > >
> > > The 3rd one saves an instruction on arm, but may need masking.
> > > (I've not compiled an arm kernel to see how often that happens.)
> > >
> > > The only architectures where (I think) the current asm code is better
> > > than the C above are sparc and sparc64.
> > > Sparc doesn't have a rotate instruction, but does have a carry flag.
> > > This makes the current asm version one instruction shorter.
> > >
> > > For architectures like mips and risc-v which have neither rotate
> > > instructions nor carry flags the C is as good as the current asm.
> > > The rotate is 3 instructions - the same as the extra cmp+add.
> > >
> > > Changing everything to use [1] would improve quite a few architectures
> > > while only adding 1 clock to some paths in arm/arm64 and sparc.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately it is all currently a mess.
> > > Most architectures don't include asm-generic/checksum.h at all.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > 
> > Then why not just have one version per arch, the most efficient one,
> > and use it everywhere ? The simple fact that we're discussing the
> > tradeoffs means that if we don't want to compromise performance here
> > (which I assume to be the case), then it needs to be per-arch and
> > that's all. At least that's the way I understand it.
> 
> At the moment there are a lot of arch-specific ones that are
> definitely sub-optimal.

Yes very likely!

> I started doing some patches, my x86-64 kernel in about 4k
> smaller with [1].
> I was going to post the patches to asm-generic an x86.

I mean, maybe we could have your 3 versions with different names
in asm-generic, and have each asm file define csum_fold() to one
of them. That would limit the spreadth of variants and the auditing
difficulty.

Willy