netdev - Re: [PATCH] tcp_cubic: use 32 bit math

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: <20070312141156.08e88b0e@freekitty>
Date:	Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:11:56 -0700
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	rkuhn@....physik.tu-muenchen.de, andi@...stfloor.org,
	dada1@...mosbay.com, jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp_cubic: use 32 bit math

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 12:48:26 +0100
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 07:51:35PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
> > Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:10:47 -0800
> > 
> > > David Miller wrote:
> > > > What about Willy Tarreau's supposedly even faster variant?
> > > > Or does this incorporate that set of improvements?
> > > >   
> > > That's what this is:
> > >     x = (2 * x + (uint32_t)div64_64(a, (uint64_t)x*(uint64_t)x)) / 3;
> > 
> > Great, thanks for the clarification.
> 
> Oh BTW, I have a newer version with a first approximation of the
> cbrt() before the div64_64, which allows us to reduce from 3 div64
> to only 2 div64. This results in a version which is twice as fast
> as the initial one (ncubic), but with slightly less accuracy (0.286%
> compared to 0.247). But I see that other functions such as hcbrt()
> had a 1.5% avg error, so I think this is not dramatic.

Ignore my hcbrt() it was a less accurate version of andi's stuff.

> Also, I managed to remove all other divides, to be kind with CPUs
> having a slow divide instruction or no divide at all. Since we compute
> on limited range (22 bits), we can multiply then shift right. It shows
> me even slightly better time on pentium-m and athlon, with a slightly
> higher avg error (0.297% compared to 0.286%), and slightly smaller
> code.

What does the code look like?

 
> I just have to clean experiments from my code to provide a patch.
> David, Stephen, are you interested ?
> 
> $ ./bictcp
> fls(0)=0, fls(1)=1, fls(256)=9
> Calibrating
> Function     clocks  mean(us) max(us)  std(us)  Avg error
> bictcp          936     0.61    24.28     1.99 0.172%
> ocubic          886     0.57    23.51     3.18 0.274%
> ncubic          644     0.42    16.59     2.18 0.247%
> ncubic32        444     0.29    11.47     1.50 0.247%
> ncubic32_1      444     0.29    11.56     1.88 0.238%
> ncubic32b3      337     0.22     8.67     0.88 0.286%
> ncubic_ndiv3    329     0.21     8.46     0.69 0.297%
> acbrt           707     0.46    18.05     0.80 0.275%
> hcbrt           644     0.42    16.44     0.51 1.580%
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Willy
> 


-- 
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html