netdev - Re: [Fwd: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: add prefetching to do

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]

Date:	Tue, 12 Nov 2013 12:38:01 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sebastien.dugue@...l.net,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: add prefetching to do_csum]

On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 14:50 -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:33:35AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 12:12 -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
[]
> > > So, the numbers are correct now that I returned my hardware to its previous
> > > interrupt affinity state, but the trend seems to be the same (namely that there
> > > isn't a clear one).  We seem to find peak performance around a readahead of 2
> > > cachelines, but its very small (about 3%), and its inconsistent (larger set
> > > sizes fall to either side of that stride).  So I don't see it as a clear win.  I
> > > still think we should probably scrap the readahead for now, just take the perf
> > > bits, and revisit this when we can use the vector instructions or the
> > > independent carry chain instructions to improve this more consistently.
> > > 
> > > Thoughts
> > 
> > Perhaps a single prefetch, not of the first addr but of
> > the addr after PREFETCH_STRIDE would work best but only
> > if length is > PREFETCH_STRIDE.
> > 
> > I'd try:
> > 
> > 	if (len > PREFETCH_STRIDE)
> > 		prefetch(buf + PREFETCH_STRIDE);
> > 	while (count64) {
> > 		etc...
> > 	}
> > 
> > I still don't know how much that impacts very short lengths.
> > Can you please add a 20 byte length to your tests?
> Sure, I modified the code so that we only prefetched 2 cache lines ahead, but
> only if the overall length of the input buffer is more than 2 cache lines.
> Below are the results (all counts are the average of 1000000 iterations of the
> csum operation, as previous tests were, I just omitted that column).
> 
> len	set	cycles/byte	cycles/byte	improvement
> 		no prefetch	prefetch
> ===========================================================
> 20B	64MB	45.014989	44.402432	1.3%
> 20B	128MB	44.900317	46.146447	-2.7%
> 20B	256MB	45.303223	48.193623	-6.3%
> 20B	512MB	45.615301	44.486872	2.2%
[]
> I'm still left thinking we should just abandon the prefetch at this point and
> keep the perf code until we have new instructions to help us with this further,
> unless you see something I dont.

I tend to agree but perhaps the 3% performance
increase with a prefetch for longer lengths is
actually significant and desirable.

It doesn't seem you've done the test I suggested
where prefetch is done only for
"len > PREFETCH_STRIDE".

Is it ever useful to do a prefetch of the
address/data being accessed by the next
instruction?

Anyway, thanks for doing all the work.

Joe

--
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