linux-kernel - Re: [patch 5/6] [RFD] timekeeping: Provide optional 128bit math

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: <20161209091149.GE15765@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:11:49 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
        Liav Rehana <liavr@...lanox.com>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Parit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
        Laurent Vivier <lvivier@...hat.com>,
        "Christopher S. Hall" <christopher.s.hall@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 5/6] [RFD] timekeeping: Provide optional 128bit math

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 09:30:11AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > > Just for giggles, on tilegx the branch is actually slower than doing the
> > > mult unconditionally.
> > > 
> > > The problem is that the two multiplies would otherwise completely
> > > pipeline, whereas with the conditional you serialize them.

> Only when using x86_64 instructions, once I fixed the i386 variant it
> was slower, probably due to register pressure and the like.

OK, maybe I messed up on i386, although I've yet to try running that on
an actual 32bit machine. I also need to dig up a small core, who knows
what atoms do.

Results are in cycles, average over 1e6 loops. I think the 128 results
are around 1 cycle, measurements are maybe a tad wobbly because I
compare against an empty loop to correct measurement overhead.


root@...-ep:~/tmp# for i in -m64 -m32 -mx32; do echo $i ; gcc -O3 $i -o mult mult.c -lm; ./mult ; done

-m64
cond: avg: 5.487738 +- 0.004152
uncond: avg: 4.495690 +- 0.006009
128: avg: 0.634496 +- 0.004795

-m32
cond: avg: 14.807630 +- 0.006890
uncond: avg: 11.601985 +- 0.009722

-mx32
cond: avg: 5.027696 +- 0.005766
uncond: avg: 4.038013 +- 0.008069
128: avg: 0.009928 +- 0.005730


root@hsw:~/tmp# for i in -m64 -m32 -mx32; do echo $i ; gcc -O3 $i -o mult mult.c -lm; ./mult ; done

-m64
cond: avg: 1.998718 +- 0.008775
uncond: avg: 2.004795 +- 0.009865
128: avg: 0.991947 +- 0.007607

-m32
cond: avg: 12.981868 +- 0.011239
uncond: avg: 13.000566 +- 0.011668

-mx32
cond: avg: 2.005437 +- 0.006840
uncond: avg: 3.001631 +- 0.004786
128: avg: 1.990425 +- 0.003880