linux-kernel - Re: Big git diff speedup by avoiding x86 "fast string" memcmp

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:03:44 +0200
From:	Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, hooanon05@...oo.co.jp,
	npiggin@...nel.dk, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Big git diff speedup by avoiding x86 "fast string" memcmp

On 12/16/2010 03:13 PM, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com> wrote:
>> On 12/15/2010 08:00 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
>>> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:15:09 +0200
>>>
>>>> I agree that the byte-compare or long-compare should give you very close
>>>> results in modern pipeline CPUs. But surly 12 increments-and-test should
>>>> show up against 3 (or even 2). I would say it must be a better plan.
>>>
>>> For strings of these lengths the setup code necessary to initialize
>>> the inner loop and the tail code to handle the sub-word ending cases
>>> eliminate whatever gains there are.
>>>
>>
>> You miss understood me. I'm saying that we know the beggining of the
>> string is aligned and Nick offered to pad the last long, so surly
>> a shift by 2 (or 3) + the reduction of the 12 dec-and-test to 3
>> should give you an optimization?
> 
> Masking is still going to take a bit more code, but perhaps. We're talking
> a handful of cycles here, so if you add a branch mispredict, or icache
> miss, you'll kill your savings.
> 
> This is what I've got at the moment, which adds only 8 bytes over the
> rep cmp variant, in the __d_lookup_rcu function.
> 
> static inline int dentry_memcmp(const unsigned char *cs,
>                                const unsigned char *ct, size_t count)
> {
>        int ret;
>        do {
>                ret = (*cs != *ct);
>                if (ret)
>                        break;
>                cs++;
>                ct++;
>                count--;
>        } while (count);
>        return ret;
> }
> 
> Now if we pad and zero fill the dentry name, then we can compare with
> the path string, but we still have to mask that guy (unfortunately, I
> didn't consider that earlier) so it's not trivial and adds quite a bit of code
> size and branches:
> 
> static inline int dentry_memcmp_long(const unsigned char *cs,
>                                const unsigned char *ct, ssize_t count)
> {
>         const unsigned long *ls = (const unsigned long *)cs;
>         const unsigned long *lt = (const unsigned long *)ct;
> 
>        int ret;
>        do {
>                 unsigned long t = *lt;
>                 unsigned long s = *ls;
>                 int shift = 0;
> 
>                 if (count < 8)
>                         shift = (8 - count) * 8;
>                 t = t & (0xffffffffffffffff >> shift);
>                ret = (s != t);
>                if (ret)
>                        break;
>                ls++;
>                lt++;
>                count-=8;
>        } while (count > 0);
>        return ret;
> }
> 
> Something like this should work on little endian. You'd have to coax gcc to
> generate a cmov to get rid of that branch I think, because it won't be
> predictable for small string lengths. But then you have to think about
> icache...

static inline int dentry_memcmp_long(const unsigned char *cs,
                                const unsigned char *ct, ssize_t count)
{
        int ret;
	const unsigned long *ls = (const unsigned long *)cs;
	const unsigned long *lt = (const unsigned long *)ct;

        while (count > 8) {
                ret = (*cs != *ct);
                if (ret)
                        break;
                cs++;
                ct++;
                count-=8;
        }
	if (count) {
		unsigned long t = *ct & ((0xffffffffffffffff >> ((8 - count) * 8))
		ret = (*cs != t)
	}

        return ret;
}

Same as yours but just to avoid the branch inside the loop
and slightly smaller code.

BTW: On some ARCHs ++foo is faster than foo++
     and Also, is there a reason not to write the above loop as:

     while(c-- && (ret = (*cs++ != *ct++)))
		;

Thanks
Boaz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/