linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/1] riscv: prevent pipeline stall in __asm_to/copy_from

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: <mhng-e4f1484c-052f-4981-83f9-3884ee4d5ea0@palmerdabbelt-glaptop>
Date:   Fri, 11 Jun 2021 21:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
To:     akira.tsukamoto@...il.com, David.Laight@...LAB.COM
CC:     akira.tsukamoto@...il.com,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        aou@...s.berkeley.edu, gary@...yguo.net, nickhu@...estech.com,
        nylon7@...estech.com, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject:     RE: [PATCH 1/1] riscv: prevent pipeline stall in __asm_to/copy_from_user

On Tue, 08 Jun 2021 04:31:40 PDT (-0700), David.Laight@...LAB.COM wrote:
> From: Akira Tsukamoto
>> Sent: 04 June 2021 10:57
>> 
>> Reducing pipeline stall of read after write (RAW).
>> 
>> These are the results from combination of the speedup with
>> Gary's misalign fix. Speeds up from 680Mbps to 900Mbps.
>> 
>> Before applying these two patches.
> 
> I think the changes should be in separate patches.
> Otherwise it is difficult to see what is relevant.
> It also looks as if there is a register rename.
> Maybe that should be a precursor patch?

Yes, and I'd also prefer the original patches.  This also doesn't apply.

> ...
> 
> I think this is the old main copy loop:
>>  1:
>> -    fixup REG_L, t2, (a1), 10f
>> -    fixup REG_S, t2, (a0), 10f
>> -    addi a1, a1, SZREG
>> -    addi a0, a0, SZREG
>> -    bltu a1, t1, 1b
> and this is the new one:
>>  3:
>> +    fixup REG_L a4,       0(a1), 10f
>> +    fixup REG_L a5,   SZREG(a1), 10f
>> +    fixup REG_L a6, 2*SZREG(a1), 10f
>> +    fixup REG_L a7, 3*SZREG(a1), 10f
>> +    fixup REG_L t0, 4*SZREG(a1), 10f
>> +    fixup REG_L t1, 5*SZREG(a1), 10f
>> +    fixup REG_L t2, 6*SZREG(a1), 10f
>> +    fixup REG_L t3, 7*SZREG(a1), 10f
>> +    fixup REG_S a4,       0(t5), 10f
>> +    fixup REG_S a5,   SZREG(t5), 10f
>> +    fixup REG_S a6, 2*SZREG(t5), 10f
>> +    fixup REG_S a7, 3*SZREG(t5), 10f
>> +    fixup REG_S t0, 4*SZREG(t5), 10f
>> +    fixup REG_S t1, 5*SZREG(t5), 10f
>> +    fixup REG_S t2, 6*SZREG(t5), 10f
>> +    fixup REG_S t3, 7*SZREG(t5), 10f
>> +    addi a1, a1, 8*SZREG
>> +    addi t5, t5, 8*SZREG
>> +    bltu a1, a3, 3b
> 
> I don't know the architecture, but unless there is a stunning
> pipeline delay for memory reads a simple interleaved copy
> may be fast enough.
> So something like:
> 	a = src[0];
> 	do {
> 		b = src[1];
> 		src += 2;
> 		dst[0] = a;
> 		dst += 2;
> 		a = src[0];
> 		dst[-1] = b;
> 	} while (src != src_end);
> 	dst[0] = a;
> 
> It is probably worth doing benchmarks of the copy loop
> in userspace.

I also don't know this microarchitecture, but this seems like a pretty 
wacky load-use delay.

Can we split out the misaligned handling fix to get that in sooner, 
that's likely the more urgent issue.

> 
> 	David
> 
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)