linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 05/83] Add NOVA filesystem definitions and useful helper routines.

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]
Date:   Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:59:49 -0700
From:   Andiry Xu <jix024@....ucsd.edu>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>
Cc:     Nikolay Borisov <n.borisov.lkml@...il.com>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "Rudoff, Andy" <andy.rudoff@...el.com>, coughlan@...hat.com,
        Steven Swanson <swanson@...ucsd.edu>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
        swhiteho@...hat.com, miklos@...redi.hu,
        Jian Xu <andiry.xu@...il.com>, Andiry Xu <jix024@...ucsd.edu>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 05/83] Add NOVA filesystem definitions and useful helper routines.

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 12:39:55PM -0700, Andiry Xu wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 02:00:13PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>> >> [Adding Herbert Xu to CC since he is the maintainer of the crypto subsys
>> >> maintainer]
>> >>
>> >> On 10.03.2018 20:17, Andiry Xu wrote:
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> > +static inline u32 nova_crc32c(u32 crc, const u8 *data, size_t len)
>> >> > +{
>> >> > +   u8 *ptr = (u8 *) data;
>> >> > +   u64 acc = crc; /* accumulator, crc32c value in lower 32b */
>> >> > +   u32 csum;
>> >> > +
>> >> > +   /* x86 instruction crc32 is part of SSE-4.2 */
>> >> > +   if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_XMM4_2)) {
>> >> > +           /* This inline assembly implementation should be equivalent
>> >> > +            * to the kernel's crc32c_intel_le_hw() function used by
>> >> > +            * crc32c(), but this performs better on test machines.
>> >> > +            */
>> >> > +           while (len > 8) {
>> >> > +                   asm volatile(/* 64b quad words */
>> >> > +                           "crc32q (%1), %0"
>> >> > +                           : "=r" (acc)
>> >> > +                           : "r"  (ptr), "0" (acc)
>> >> > +                   );
>> >> > +                   ptr += 8;
>> >> > +                   len -= 8;
>> >> > +           }
>> >> > +
>> >> > +           while (len > 0) {
>> >> > +                   asm volatile(/* trailing bytes */
>> >> > +                           "crc32b (%1), %0"
>> >> > +                           : "=r" (acc)
>> >> > +                           : "r"  (ptr), "0" (acc)
>> >> > +                   );
>> >> > +                   ptr++;
>> >> > +                   len--;
>> >> > +           }
>> >> > +
>> >> > +           csum = (u32) acc;
>> >> > +   } else {
>> >> > +           /* The kernel's crc32c() function should also detect and use the
>> >> > +            * crc32 instruction of SSE-4.2. But calling in to this function
>> >> > +            * is about 3x to 5x slower than the inline assembly version on
>> >> > +            * some test machines.
>> >>
>> >> That is really odd. Did you try to characterize why this is the case? Is
>> >> it purely the overhead of dispatching to the correct backend function?
>> >> That's a rather big performance hit.
>> >>
>> >> > +            */
>> >> > +           csum = crc32c(crc, data, len);
>> >> > +   }
>> >> > +
>> >> > +   return csum;
>> >> > +}
>> >> > +
>> >
>> > Are you sure that CONFIG_CRYPTO_CRC32C_INTEL was enabled during your tests and
>> > that the accelerated version was being called?  Or, perhaps CRC32C_PCL_BREAKEVEN
>> > (defined in arch/x86/crypto/crc32c-intel_glue.c) needs to be adjusted.  Please
>> > don't hack around performance problems like this; if they exist, they need to be
>> > fixed for everyone.
>> >
>>
>> I have performed the crc32c test on a Xeon X5647 at 2.93GHz, 14G DDR3
>> memory at 1066MHz platform.
>> You are right that enabling CONFIG_CRYPTO_CRC32C_INTEL improves the
>> performance significantly. nova_crc32c() is still slightly faster than
>> crc32c() with the flag enabled.
>>
>> Result numbers are follows: data size in bytes, latency in ns, column
>> 3 is crc32c() with  CONFIG_CRYPTO_CRC32C_INTEL enabled and column 4
>> disabled.
>>
>> data size (bytes)        nova_crc32c()        crc32c() -enabled
>> crc32c() -disabled
>> 64                              19                           21 56
>> 128                            28                           29 99
>> 256                            46                           43 182
>> 512                            82                           149 354
>> 1024                          157                         232 728
>> 2048                          305                         415 1440
>> 4096                          603                         725 2869
>>
>
> Probably CRC32C_PCL_BREAKEVEN needs to be adjusted for that CPU, as I suggested
> may be the case; notice that your measured speeds are about the same before 512
> (CRC32C_PCL_BREAKEVEN) bytes, but the crypto API version is slower at >= 512
> bytes.   It would be possible to set the breakeven point in
> crc32c_intel_mod_init() depending on the CPU.  Again, if the performance is not
> good enough you need to fix it for everyone, not hack around it.
>

We verify that by setting CRC32C_PCL_BREAKEVEN to 8192, the
performance difference between nova_crc32c() and kernel's crc32c() is
negligible. Thanks for the comments, and I will use kernel's crc32c()
in the next version.

Thanks,
Andiry