| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20140612003249.13680.qmail@ns.horizon.com>
Date: 11 Jun 2014 20:32:49 -0400
From: "George Spelvin" <linux@...izon.com>
To: linux@...izon.com, tytso@....edu
Cc: hpa@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...nel.org, price@....edu
Subject: Re: drivers/char/random.c: More futzing about
> ... but how did you measure the "2/3 the time"? I've done some
> measurements, using both "time calling fast_mix() and fast_mix2() N
> times and divide by N (where N needs to be quite large). Using that
> metric, fast_mix2() takes seven times as long to run.
Wow, *massively* different results. Using a large iteration count,
it's defintiely faster. Here's with 1,000,000 iterations:
# ./perftest ./random
pool 1 = 6b469698 596ceb8f 70536d2d e262b8ed
pool 2 = 72e2554d fd20e020 a51baf43 19472f63
0: 40587696 19952756 (-20634940)
1: 40569444 19986700 (-20582744)
2: 40529396 19983108 (-20546288)
3: 40492468 19959528 (-20532940)
4: 40461808 19977316 (-20484492)
5: 40421980 19977436 (-20444544)
6: 40495440 19959904 (-20535536)
7: 40436676 19975400 (-20461276)
8: 40454912 19971360 (-20483552)
9: 40463260 19957324 (-20505936)
Here's with 1 iteration (which you're very right, I failed to test,
and instruction counts matter more when code is not hot in cache)
# ./perftest ./random
pool 1 = 85670974 e96b1f8f 51244abf 5863283f
pool 2 = 03564c6c eba81d03 55c77fa1 760374a7
0: 76 84 (+8)
1: 36 36 (+0)
2: 32 36 (+4)
3: 32 40 (+8)
4: 28 40 (+12)
5: 32 36 (+4)
6: 32 36 (+4)
7: 28 40 (+12)
8: 32 40 (+8)
9: 28 40 (+12)
Comparable, but slightly slower. Clearly, I need to do better.
And you can see the first-iteration effects clearly. Still,
noting *remotely* like 7x!
That seems crazy, as the overall operation counts are
not that dissimilar.
Here's the "perftest" shell wrapper:
#!/bin/sh
old="`cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_governor`"
for i in /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_governor; do
echo performance > $i
done
"$@"
for i in /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_governor; do
echo "$old" > $i
done
And "random.c" is appended. Apologies for the comemnts and #ifdefs
I used while experimenting; I wanted to give you *exactly* what
I'm running. Do you see a bug in it anywhere?
I know P4s have slow rotates, so the larger number of them compared
to shifts in the original will definitely cause a hit. But neither
of us are using that.
Compile line and platform:
cc -W -Wall -m64 -O -march=native random.c -o random
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4930K CPU @ 3.40GHz
#include <stdint.h>
typedef uint32_t u32;
static u32 const twist_table[8] = {
0x00000000, 0x3b6e20c8, 0x76dc4190, 0x4db26158,
0xedb88320, 0xd6d6a3e8, 0x9b64c2b0, 0xa00ae278 };
struct fast_pool {
u32 pool[4];
unsigned long last;
unsigned short count;
unsigned char rotate;
unsigned char last_timer_intr;
};
static inline u32 rol32(u32 word, unsigned int shift)
{
return (word << shift) | (word >> (32 - shift));
}
/*
* This is a fast mixing routine used by the interrupt randomness
* collector. It's hardcoded for an 128 bit pool and assumes that any
* locks that might be needed are taken by the caller.
*/
void fast_mix(struct fast_pool *f, u32 const input[4])
{
u32 w;
unsigned input_rotate = f->rotate;
w = rol32(input[0], input_rotate) ^ f->pool[0] ^ f->pool[3];
f->pool[0] = (w >> 3) ^ twist_table[w & 7];
input_rotate = (input_rotate + 14) & 31;
w = rol32(input[1], input_rotate) ^ f->pool[1] ^ f->pool[0];
f->pool[1] = (w >> 3) ^ twist_table[w & 7];
input_rotate = (input_rotate + 7) & 31;
w = rol32(input[2], input_rotate) ^ f->pool[2] ^ f->pool[1];
f->pool[2] = (w >> 3) ^ twist_table[w & 7];
input_rotate = (input_rotate + 7) & 31;
w = rol32(input[3], input_rotate) ^ f->pool[3] ^ f->pool[2];
f->pool[3] = (w >> 3) ^ twist_table[w & 7];
input_rotate = (input_rotate + 7) & 31;
f->rotate = input_rotate;
f->count++;
}
void fast_mix2(struct fast_pool *f, u32 const input[4])
{
/* Copy pool to registers */
u32 a = f->pool[0] ^ input[0];
u32 b = f->pool[1] ^ input[1];
u32 c = f->pool[2] ^ input[2];
u32 d = f->pool[3] ^ input[3];
#if 1
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
/*
* Inspired by ChaCha QuarterRound, but
* modified for much greater parallelism.
*/
a += b; c += d;
d ^= a; b ^= c;
// a = rol32(a, 24); c = rol32(c, 5);
a = rol32(a, 27); c = rol32(c, 7);
// d = rol32(d, 27); b = rol32(b, 7);
a += b; c += d;
d ^= a; b ^= c;
a = rol32(a, 17); c = rol32(c, 11);
// d = rol32(d, 17); b = rol32(b, 11);
#if 0
a += b; c += d;
d ^= a; b ^= c;
a = rol32(a, 24); c = rol32(c, 5);
#endif
}
f->pool[0] = a;
f->pool[1] = b;
f->pool[2] = c;
f->pool[3] = d;
#elif 1
a ^= a<<15; a ^= a>>4 ^ d ^ d>>21; f->pool[0] = a;
b ^= b<<15; b ^= b>>4 ^ a ^ a>>21; f->pool[1] = b;
c ^= c<<15; c ^= c>>4 ^ b ^ b>>21; f->pool[2] = c;
d ^= d<<15; d ^= d>>4 ^ c ^ c>>21; f->pool[3] = d;
#else
f->pool[0] = a ^= a<<20 ^ b ^ b>>11 ^ c ^ c<<27 ^ d ^ d >> 6;
f->pool[1] = b ^= b<<20 ^ c ^ c>>11 ^ d ^ d<<27 ^ a ^ a >> 6;
f->pool[2] = c ^= c<<20 ^ d ^ d>>11 ^ a ^ a<<27 ^ b ^ b >> 6;
f->pool[3] = d ^= d<<20 ^ a ^ a>>11 ^ b ^ b<<27 ^ c ^ c >> 6;
#endif
f->count++;
}
static uint64_t
rdtsc(void)
{
uint32_t low, high;
__asm__ __volatile__("rdtsc" : "=a" (low), "=d" (high));
return ((uint64_t)high << 32) | low;
}
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define ITER 1
#define N 10
int
main(void)
{
struct fast_pool fp1 = {
.pool = {0},
.count = 0,
.rotate = 0
};
struct fast_pool fp2 = {
.pool = {0},
.count = 0
};
uint32_t times[N][2];
int i, j;
for (i = 0; i < N; i++) {
uint64_t t1, t2, t3;
uint32_t data[4];
for (j = 0; j < 4; j++)
data[j] = random();
t1 = rdtsc();
for (j = 0; j < ITER; j++)
fast_mix(&fp1, data);
t2 = rdtsc();
for (j = 0; j < ITER; j++)
fast_mix2(&fp2, data);
t3 = rdtsc();
times[i][0] = t2 - t1;
times[i][1] = t3 - t2;
}
printf("pool 1 = %08x %08x %08x %08x\n", fp1.pool[0],
fp1.pool[1], fp1.pool[2], fp1.pool[3]);
printf("pool 2 = %08x %08x %08x %08x\n", fp2.pool[0],
fp2.pool[1], fp2.pool[2], fp2.pool[3]);
for (i = 0; i < N; i++)
printf("%2d: %10u %10u (%+d)\n",
i, times[i][0], times[i][1],
(int)(times[i][1] - times[i][0]));
return 0;
}
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists