[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <nycvar.YSQ.7.76.1808101550460.13885@knanqh.ubzr>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 16:00:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>
To: Jeff Lien <jeff.lien@....com>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
martin.petersen@...cle.com, david.darrington@....com,
jeff.furlong@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Performance Improvement in CRC16 Calculations.
On Fri, 10 Aug 2018, Jeff Lien wrote:
> This patch provides a performance improvement for the CRC16 calculations done in read/write
> workloads using the T10 Type 1/2/3 guard field. For example, today with sequential write
> workloads (one thread/CPU of IO) we consume 100% of the CPU because of the CRC16 computation
> bottleneck. Today's block devices are considerably faster, but the CRC16 calculation prevents
> folks from utilizing the throughput of such devices. To speed up this calculation and expose
> the block device throughput, we slice the old single byte for loop into a 16 byte for loop,
> with a larger CRC table to match. The result has shown 5x performance improvements on various
> big endian and little endian systems running the 4.18.0 kernel version.
You are nevertheless increasing the kernel size by 7.5 KB.
Could the small table still be preserved with a config option for those
who require small more than fast?
That could look like:
static const __u16 t10_dif_crc_table[][256] = {
{
[...]
},
#ifndef CONFIG_CRC16_SMALL
{
[...]
[...]
},
#endif
};
and the code to suit.
Nicolas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists