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: <b69d404a5de74e3db115c335e56a21af@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 May 2019 13:54:37 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Robin Murphy' <robin.murphy@....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

From: Robin Murphy
> Sent: 15 May 2019 13:40
> 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.

Is there a pipeline delay before the result of the memory read (*ptr)
can be used? (Even assuming the data is in the L1 cache??)
Even on an in-order cpu that can give you a spare cycle or two
that the code may not normally fill.

FWIW I've been known to use (++ptr)[-1] (instead of *ptr++) to move
the increment into an available delay slot (of an earlier load).

Anyway it isn't that obvious that it is the fastest way.

	David

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