linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] riscv: optimized memcpy

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: <CAEUhbmV+Vi0Ssyzq1B2RTkbjMpE21xjdj2MSKdLydgW6WuCKtA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Jun 2021 21:08:50 +0800
From:   Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@...il.com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc:     Matteo Croce <mcroce@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        "linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>,
        Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk>,
        Akira Tsukamoto <akira.tsukamoto@...il.com>,
        Drew Fustini <drew@...gleboard.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] riscv: optimized memcpy

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 4:57 PM David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
>
> From: Matteo Croce
> > Sent: 15 June 2021 03:38
> >
> > Write a C version of memcpy() which uses the biggest data size allowed,
> > without generating unaligned accesses.
>
> I'm surprised that the C loop:
>
> > +             for (; count >= bytes_long; count -= bytes_long)
> > +                     *d.ulong++ = *s.ulong++;
>
> ends up being faster than the ASM 'read lots' - 'write lots' loop.

I believe that's because the assembly version has some unaligned
access cases, which end up being trap-n-emulated in the OpenSBI
firmware, and that is a big overhead.

>
> Especially since there was an earlier patch to convert
> copy_to/from_user() to use the ASM 'read lots' - 'write lots' loop
> instead of a tight single register copy loop.
>
> I'd also guess that the performance needs to be measured on
> different classes of riscv cpu.
>
> A simple cpu will behave differently to one that can execute
> multiple instructions per clock.
> Any form of 'out of order' execution also changes things.
> The other big change is whether the cpu can to a memory
> read and write in the same clock.
>
> I'd guess that riscv exist with some/all of those features.

Regards,
Bin