linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Optimize int_sqrt for small values for faster idle

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]

Message-ID: <2197456.e7XNAplqRP@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Fri, 29 Jan 2016 04:59:16 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	davidlohr.bueso@...com, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
	lenb@...nel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optimize int_sqrt for small values for faster idle

On Thursday, January 28, 2016 01:42:45 PM Andi Kleen wrote:
> From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> The menu cpuidle governor does at least two int_sqrt() each time
> we go into idle in get_typical_interval to compute stddev
> 
> int_sqrts take 100-120 cycles each. Short idle latency is important
> for many workloads.
> 
> I instrumented the function on my workstation and most values are
> 16bit only and most others 32bit (50% percentile is 122094,
> 75% is 3699533).
> 
> sqrt is implemented by starting with an initial estimation,
> and then iterating. int_sqrt currently only uses a fixed
> estimating which is good for 64bits worth of input.
> 
> This patch adds some checks at the beginning to start with
> a better estimate for values fitting in 8, 16bit and 32bit.
> This makes int_sqrt between 60+% faster for values in 16bit,
> and still somewhat faster (between 10 and 30%) for larger values
> upto 32bit. Full 64bit is slightly slower.
> 
> This optimizes the short idle calls and does not hurt the
> long sleep (which probably do not care) much.
> 
> An alternative would be a full table drive approach, or
> trying some inverted sqrt optimization, but this simple change
> already seems to have a good payoff.

I'm wondering if you have any numbers on how much of a difference this
makes in practice in terms of energy consumption, performance, latency etc.

Thanks,
Rafael