| 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: <53FB32FD.4000603@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:58:37 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
CC: Francesco Fusco <ffusco@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nadia Yvette Chambers <nyc@...omorphy.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] hash: Let gcc decide how to multiply
On 08/25/2014 02:13 PM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> A 9+ years old comment in hash_64 says that gcc can't optimize
> multiplication by GOLDEN_RATIO_PRIME_64. Well, compilers get smarter
> and CPUs get faster all the time, so it is perhaps about time to
> revisit that assumption.
Seems fine by me, but Cc'ing a couple of others (as those you have Cc'ed
haven't written that code :)). You might want to let your changes go via
Andrew's tree, too, perhaps ...
> A stupid micro-benchmark [3] on my x86_64 machine shows that letting
> gcc generate the imul instruction is ~60% faster than the sequence of
> shifts and add/sub. But that is cheating, since the load of the
> constant is hoisted out of the loop. A slightly less stupid [1]
> micro-benchmark still shows ~55% improvement over the current
> version. So let the compiler do its job.
>
> Also, this should reduce the instruction cache footprint of all
> callers of the force-inlined hash_64. [2]
>
> While at it, fix the suffixes of GOLDEN_RATIO_PRIME_{32,64} so that
> their types are compatible with u32/u64 on all platforms (I'm not sure
> what the compiler does on a 32-bit platform when encountering a
> too-wide literal with an explicit UL suffix).
>
> [1] It is stupid in another way, since my inline asm skills
> suck. Still, I at least get to force the compiler to do the load on
> every loop iteration.
>
> [2] Well, it is an overall win: x86_64, defconfig, gcc 4.7.2:
> $ scripts/bloat-o-meter /tmp/vmlinux-{master,hash}
> add/remove: 0/1 grow/shrink: 17/44 up/down: 622/-2418 (-1796)
>
> [3] Please don't laugh:
> /*
> $ gcc -Wall -O2 -o hashtest hashtest.c
> $ ./hashtest
> gcc_hash 2093320 12624
> asm_hash 2093320 14264
> kernel_hash 2093320 32076
> $ echo $((100*12624/32076)), $((100*14264/32076))
> 39, 44
> */
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <stdint.h>
> #include <rdtsc.h>
> #include <fcntl.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
>
> #define u64 uint64_t
>
> #define GOLDEN_RATIO_PRIME_64 0x9e37fffffffc0001UL
>
> #ifndef __always_inline
> #define __always_inline __inline __attribute__ ((__always_inline__))
> #endif
>
> static __always_inline u64 kernel_hash(u64 val, unsigned int bits)
> {
> u64 hash = val;
>
> /* Sigh, gcc can't optimise this alone like it does for 32 bits. */
> u64 n = hash;
> n <<= 18;
> hash -= n;
> n <<= 33;
> hash -= n;
> n <<= 3;
> hash += n;
> n <<= 3;
> hash -= n;
> n <<= 4;
> hash += n;
> n <<= 2;
> hash += n;
>
> /* High bits are more random, so use them. */
> return hash >> (64 - bits);
> }
>
> static __always_inline u64 gcc_hash(u64 val, unsigned int bits)
> {
> u64 hash = val * GOLDEN_RATIO_PRIME_64;
> return hash >> (64 - bits);
> }
>
> static __always_inline u64 asm_hash(u64 val, unsigned int bits)
> {
> u64 hash;
> __asm__("mov %1, %%rax\n\t"
> "movabs $0x9e37fffffffc0001,%%rdx\n\t"
> "imul %%rdx,%%rax\n\t"
> "mov %%rax, %0"
> : "=r"(hash)
> :"r"(val)
> : "%rax", "%rdx");
> return hash >> (64 - bits);
> }
>
> /* I have 32 KiB of L1 data cache. */
> #define N ((1<<15)/sizeof(u64))
> #define NBITS 10 /* doesn't seem to affect the outcome */
>
> int main(void)
> {
> unsigned long start, stop;
> u64 buf[N];
> int fd = open("/dev/urandom", O_RDONLY);
> u64 sum;
> int i;
>
> if (fd < 0)
> exit(1);
> if (read(fd, buf, sizeof(buf)) != sizeof(buf))
> exit(2);
> close(fd);
>
> #define TEST(f) do { \
> sum = 0; \
> start = rdtsc(); \
> for (i = 0; i < N; ++i) \
> sum += f(buf[i], NBITS); \
> stop = rdtsc(); \
> printf("%s\t%lu\t%lu\n", #f, sum, stop-start); \
> } while (0)
>
> TEST(gcc_hash);
> TEST(asm_hash);
> TEST(kernel_hash);
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
> ---
> include/linux/hash.h | 21 +++------------------
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/hash.h b/include/linux/hash.h
> index bd1754c..6a0879a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/hash.h
> +++ b/include/linux/hash.h
> @@ -19,9 +19,9 @@
> #include <linux/compiler.h>
>
> /* 2^31 + 2^29 - 2^25 + 2^22 - 2^19 - 2^16 + 1 */
> -#define GOLDEN_RATIO_PRIME_32 0x9e370001UL
> +#define GOLDEN_RATIO_PRIME_32 0x9e370001U
> /* 2^63 + 2^61 - 2^57 + 2^54 - 2^51 - 2^18 + 1 */
> -#define GOLDEN_RATIO_PRIME_64 0x9e37fffffffc0001UL
> +#define GOLDEN_RATIO_PRIME_64 0x9e37fffffffc0001ULL
>
> #if BITS_PER_LONG == 32
> #define GOLDEN_RATIO_PRIME GOLDEN_RATIO_PRIME_32
> @@ -35,22 +35,7 @@
>
> static __always_inline u64 hash_64(u64 val, unsigned int bits)
> {
> - u64 hash = val;
> -
> - /* Sigh, gcc can't optimise this alone like it does for 32 bits. */
> - u64 n = hash;
> - n <<= 18;
> - hash -= n;
> - n <<= 33;
> - hash -= n;
> - n <<= 3;
> - hash += n;
> - n <<= 3;
> - hash -= n;
> - n <<= 4;
> - hash += n;
> - n <<= 2;
> - hash += n;
> + u64 hash = val * GOLDEN_RATIO_PRIME_64;
>
> /* High bits are more random, so use them. */
> return hash >> (64 - bits);
>
--
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