linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2 0/3] lib/string: optimized mem* functions

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <af19820cd24544cd8833d6db6d38154b@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Jul 2021 08:15:41 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Matteo Croce' <mcroce@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nick Kossifidis <mick@....forth.gr>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        "Emil Renner Berthing" <kernel@...il.dk>,
        Drew Fustini <drew@...gleboard.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 0/3] lib/string: optimized mem* functions

From: Matteo Croce
> Sent: 11 July 2021 00:08
> 
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 11:31 PM Andrew Morton
> <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri,  2 Jul 2021 14:31:50 +0200 Matteo Croce <mcroce@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Matteo Croce <mcroce@...rosoft.com>
> > >
> > > Rewrite the generic mem{cpy,move,set} so that memory is accessed with
> > > the widest size possible, but without doing unaligned accesses.
> > >
> > > This was originally posted as C string functions for RISC-V[1], but as
> > > there was no specific RISC-V code, it was proposed for the generic
> > > lib/string.c implementation.
> > >
> > > Tested on RISC-V and on x86_64 by undefining __HAVE_ARCH_MEM{CPY,SET,MOVE}
> > > and HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS.
> > >
> > > These are the performances of memcpy() and memset() of a RISC-V machine
> > > on a 32 mbyte buffer:
> > >
> > > memcpy:
> > > original aligned:      75 Mb/s
> > > original unaligned:    75 Mb/s
> > > new aligned:          114 Mb/s
> > > new unaligned:                107 Mb/s
> > >
> > > memset:
> > > original aligned:     140 Mb/s
> > > original unaligned:   140 Mb/s
> > > new aligned:          241 Mb/s
> > > new unaligned:                241 Mb/s
> >
> > Did you record the x86_64 performance?
> >
> >
> > Which other architectures are affected by this change?
> 
> x86_64 won't use these functions because it defines __HAVE_ARCH_MEMCPY
> and has optimized implementations in arch/x86/lib.
> Anyway, I was curious and I tested them on x86_64 too, there was zero
> gain over the generic ones.

x86 performance (and attainable performance) does depend on the cpu
micro-archiecture.

Any recent 'desktop' intel cpu will almost certainly manage to
re-order the execution of almost any copy loop and attain 1 write per clock.
(Even the trivial 'while (count--) *dest++ = *src++;' loop.)

The same isn't true of the Atom based cpu that may be on small servers.
Theses are no slouches (eg 4 cores at 2.4GHz) but only have limited
out-of-order execution and so are much more sensitive to instruction
ordering.

	David

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