| 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: <55ABBEED.2000707@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 17:14:53 +0200
From: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, tom@...bertland.com
CC: tgraf@...g.ch, alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com,
kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] jhash: Deinline jhash, jhash2 and __jhash_nwords
On 07/16/2015 08:17 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 08:43:25 -0700
>
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com> wrote:
>>> This patch deinlines jhash, jhash2 and __jhash_nwords.
>>>
>>> It also removes rhashtable_jhash2(key, length, seed)
>>> because it was merely calling jhash2(key, length, seed).
>>>
>>> With this .config: http://busybox.net/~vda/kernel_config,
>>> after deinlining these functions have sizes and callsite counts
>>> as follows:
>>>
>>> __jhash_nwords: 72 bytes, 75 calls
>>> jhash: 297 bytes, 111 calls
>>> jhash2: 205 bytes, 136 calls
>>>
>> jhash is used in several places in the critical data path. Does the
>> decrease in text size justify performance impact of not inlining it?
>
> Tom took the words right out of my mouth.
>
> Denys, you keep making deinlining changes like this all the time, like
> a robot. But I never see you make any effort to look into the performance
> nor code generation ramifications of your changes.
The performance impact of the call/ret pair on modern x86
CPUs is only 5 cycles. To make a real difference in execution
speed, the function has to be less than 100 bytes of code.
jhash and jhash2, at more than 200 bytes of code, are definitely
far too large for inlining. Here is the smaller of two, jhash2:
<jhash2>:
8d 84 b2 ef be ad de lea -0x21524111(%rdx,%rsi,4),%eax
55 push %rbp
89 c1 mov %eax,%ecx
48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
89 c2 mov %eax,%edx
eb 62 jmp ffffffff81a0d204 <jhash2+0x73>
03 47 08 add 0x8(%rdi),%eax
03 17 add (%rdi),%edx
83 ee 03 sub $0x3,%esi
03 4f 04 add 0x4(%rdi),%ecx
48 83 c7 0c add $0xc,%rdi
41 89 c0 mov %eax,%r8d
29 c2 sub %eax,%edx
41 c1 c8 1c ror $0x1c,%r8d
01 c8 add %ecx,%eax
44 31 c2 xor %r8d,%edx
41 89 d0 mov %edx,%r8d
29 d1 sub %edx,%ecx
01 c2 add %eax,%edx
41 c1 c8 1a ror $0x1a,%r8d
41 31 c8 xor %ecx,%r8d
44 89 c1 mov %r8d,%ecx
44 29 c0 sub %r8d,%eax
41 01 d0 add %edx,%r8d
c1 c9 18 ror $0x18,%ecx
31 c1 xor %eax,%ecx
89 c8 mov %ecx,%eax
29 ca sub %ecx,%edx
46 8d 0c 01 lea (%rcx,%r8,1),%r9d
c1 c8 10 ror $0x10,%eax
31 d0 xor %edx,%eax
89 c1 mov %eax,%ecx
41 29 c0 sub %eax,%r8d
42 8d 14 08 lea (%rax,%r9,1),%edx
c1 c9 0d ror $0xd,%ecx
44 31 c1 xor %r8d,%ecx
89 c8 mov %ecx,%eax
41 29 c9 sub %ecx,%r9d
01 d1 add %edx,%ecx
c1 c8 1c ror $0x1c,%eax
44 31 c8 xor %r9d,%eax
83 fe 03 cmp $0x3,%esi
77 99 ja ffffffff81a0d1a2 <jhash2+0x11>
83 fe 02 cmp $0x2,%esi
74 0e je ffffffff81a0d21c <jhash2+0x8b>
83 fe 03 cmp $0x3,%esi
74 06 je ffffffff81a0d219 <jhash2+0x88>
ff ce dec %esi
75 45 jne ffffffff81a0d25c <jhash2+0xcb>
eb 06 jmp ffffffff81a0d21f <jhash2+0x8e>
03 47 08 add 0x8(%rdi),%eax
03 4f 04 add 0x4(%rdi),%ecx
89 ce mov %ecx,%esi
03 17 add (%rdi),%edx
31 c8 xor %ecx,%eax
c1 ce 12 ror $0x12,%esi
29 f0 sub %esi,%eax
89 c6 mov %eax,%esi
31 c2 xor %eax,%edx
c1 ce 15 ror $0x15,%esi
29 f2 sub %esi,%edx
89 d6 mov %edx,%esi
31 d1 xor %edx,%ecx
c1 ce 07 ror $0x7,%esi
29 f1 sub %esi,%ecx
89 ce mov %ecx,%esi
31 c8 xor %ecx,%eax
c1 ce 10 ror $0x10,%esi
29 f0 sub %esi,%eax
89 c6 mov %eax,%esi
31 c2 xor %eax,%edx
c1 ce 1c ror $0x1c,%esi
29 f2 sub %esi,%edx
31 d1 xor %edx,%ecx
c1 ca 12 ror $0x12,%edx
29 d1 sub %edx,%ecx
31 c8 xor %ecx,%eax
c1 c9 08 ror $0x8,%ecx
29 c8 sub %ecx,%eax
5d pop %rbp
c3 retq
Yes, I do think that this much code should not be inlined.
__jhash_nwords is smaller and it is used for hashing 2 or 3 32-bit words,
it may be reasonable to inline it.
I'll send a new patch which keeps it inlined.
> Your changes potentially have large performance implications, yet you
> don't put any effort into considering that aspect at all.
I don't know why you think I'm some sort of zealot hell-bent
on deinlining everything. I'm not. I do listen to other people.
For example:
One of my patches was deninlining net_generic(), you proposed
to drop some BUG_ONs in it instead.
I wasn't insisting to have it "my way".
I sent you a patch which removed BUG_ON but left net_generic()
inlined, and you took the patch.
--
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