netdev - Re: [PATCH] arm64: do_csum: implement accelerated scalar version

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: <083f8222-971c-0d8e-4650-0d88b193e316@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 May 2019 13:39:47 +0100
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        'Will Deacon' <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     Zhangshaokun <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org" <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
        "huanglingyan (A)" <huanglingyan2@...wei.com>,
        "steve.capper@....com" <steve.capper@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: do_csum: implement accelerated scalar version

On 15/05/2019 12:13, David Laight wrote:
> From: Robin Murphy
>> Sent: 15 May 2019 11:58
>> To: David Laight; 'Will Deacon'
>> Cc: Zhangshaokun; Ard Biesheuvel; linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org; netdev@...r.kernel.org;
>> ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org; huanglingyan (A); steve.capper@....com
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: do_csum: implement accelerated scalar version
>>
>> On 15/05/2019 11:15, David Laight wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> 	ptr = (u64 *)(buff - offset);
>>>>> 	shift = offset * 8;
>>>>>
>>>>> 	/*
>>>>> 	 * Head: zero out any excess leading bytes. Shifting back by the same
>>>>> 	 * amount should be at least as fast as any other way of handling the
>>>>> 	 * odd/even alignment, and means we can ignore it until the very end.
>>>>> 	 */
>>>>> 	data = *ptr++;
>>>>> #ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN
>>>>> 	data = (data >> shift) << shift;
>>>>> #else
>>>>> 	data = (data << shift) >> shift;
>>>>> #endif
>>>
>>> I suspect that
>>> #ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN
>>> 	data &= ~0ull << shift;
>>> #else
>>> 	data &= ~0ull >> shift;
>>> #endif
>>> is likely to be better.
>>
>> Out of interest, better in which respects? For the A64 ISA at least,
>> that would take 3 instructions plus an additional scratch register, e.g.:
>>
>> 	MOV	x2, #~0
>> 	LSL	x2, x2, x1
>> 	AND	x0, x0, x1

[That should have been "AND x0, x1, x2", obviously...]

>>
>> (alternatively "AND x0, x0, x1 LSL x2" to save 4 bytes of code, but that
>> will typically take as many cycles if not more than just pipelining the
>> two 'simple' ALU instructions)
>>
>> Whereas the original is just two shift instruction in-place.
>>
>> 	LSR	x0, x0, x1
>> 	LSL	x0, x0, x1
>>
>> If the operation were repeated, the constant generation could certainly
>> be amortised over multiple subsequent ANDs for a net win, but that isn't
>> the case here.
> 
> On a superscaler processor you reduce the register dependency
> chain by one instruction.
> The original code is pretty much a single dependency chain so
> you are likely to be able to generate the mask 'for free'.

Gotcha, although 'free' still means additional I$ and register rename 
footprint, vs. (typically) just 1 extra cycle to forward an ALU result. 
It's an interesting consideration, but in our case there are almost 
certainly far more little in-order cores out in the wild than big OoO 
ones, and the double-shift will always be objectively better for those.

Thanks,
Robin.