From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: <davem@davemloft.net>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
<kernel-team@fb.com>, <tglx@linutronix.de>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
<hpa@zytor.com>, <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: Implement fast csum_partial for x86_64
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 12:05:54 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87wprmean1.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1452019261-449449-1-git-send-email-tom@herbertland.com> (Tom Herbert's message of "Tue, 5 Jan 2016 10:41:01 -0800")
Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> writes:
> Also, we don't do anything special for alignment, unaligned
> accesses on x86 do not appear to be a performance issue.
This is not true on Atom CPUs.
Also on most CPUs there is still a larger penalty when crossing
cache lines.
> Verified correctness by testing arbitrary length buffer filled with
> random data. For each buffer I compared the computed checksum
> using the original algorithm for each possible alignment (0-7 bytes).
>
> Checksum performance:
>
> Isolating old and new implementation for some common cases:
You forgot to state the CPU. The results likely depend heavily
on the micro architecture.
The original C code was optimized for K8 FWIW.
Overall your assembler looks similar to the C code, except for the jump
table. Jump table has the disadvantage that it is much harder to branch
predict, with a large penalty if it's mispredicted.
I would expect it to be slower for cases where the length
changes frequently. Did you benchmark that case?
-Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-06 20:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-05 18:41 [PATCH v2 net-next] net: Implement fast csum_partial for x86_64 Tom Herbert
2016-01-05 22:18 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-01-06 1:10 ` H. Peter Anvin
2016-01-06 3:02 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-01-06 10:16 ` David Laight
2016-01-06 14:25 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-01-06 14:49 ` David Laight
2016-01-06 15:03 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-01-05 23:35 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-01-06 3:21 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-01-06 20:05 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2016-01-07 1:52 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-01-07 2:36 ` Tom Herbert
2016-01-07 2:43 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
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=87wprmean1.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com \
--to=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tom@herbertland.com \
--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