linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH RFC 2/2] [x86] Optimize copy_page by re-arranging instruction sequence and saving register

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <B2310DA9850C8743AA7AA0055500E90F0FD709C4@SHSMSX102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 12 Oct 2012 03:10:45 +0000
From:	"Ma, Ling" <ling.ma@...el.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC:	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH RFC 2/2] [x86] Optimize copy_page by re-arranging
 instruction sequence and saving register

> > Load and write operation occupy about 35% and 10% respectively for
> > most industry benchmarks. Fetched 16-aligned bytes code include about
> > 4 instructions, implying 1.34(0.35 * 4) load, 0.4 write.
> > Modern CPU support 2 load and 1 write per cycle, so throughput from
> > write is bottleneck for memcpy or copy_page, and some slight CPU only
> > support one mem operation per cycle. So it is enough to issue one
> read
> > and write instruction per cycle, and we can save registers.
> 
> I don't think "saving registers" is a useful goal here.

Ling: issuing one read and write ops in one cycle is enough for copy_page or memcpy performance,
so we could avoid saving and restoring registers operation.

> >
> > In this patch we also re-arrange instruction sequence to improve
> > performance The performance on atom is improved about 11%, 9% on
> > hot/cold-cache case respectively.
> 
> That's great, but the question is what happened to the older CPUs that
> also this sequence. It may be safer to add a new variant for Atom,
> unless you can benchmark those too.

Ling: 
I tested new and original version on core2, the patch improved performance about 9%,
Although core2 is out-of-order pipeline and weaken instruction sequence requirement, 
because of ROB size limitation, new patch issues write operation earlier and
get more parallelism possibility for the pair of write and load ops and better result.
Attached core2-cpu-info (I have no older machine)


Thanks
Ling

 

Download attachment "core2-cpu-info" of type "application/octet-stream" (2992 bytes)