lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86: Run checksumming in parallel accross multiple alu's
From
Date
On Tue, 2013-10-15 at 09:41 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2013-10-14 at 15:44 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2013-10-14 at 15:37 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2013-10-14 at 15:18 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > > attached patch brings much better results
> > > > >
> > > > > lpq83:~# ./netperf -H 7.7.8.84 -l 10 -Cc
> > > > > MIGRATED TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to 7.7.8.84 () port 0 AF_INET
> > > > > Recv Send Send Utilization Service Demand
> > > > > Socket Socket Message Elapsed Send Recv Send Recv
> > > > > Size Size Size Time Throughput local remote local remote
> > > > > bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/s % S % S us/KB us/KB
> > > > >
> > > > > 87380 16384 16384 10.00 8043.82 2.32 5.34 0.566 1.304
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/csum-partial_64.c b/arch/x86/lib/csum-partial_64.c
> > > > []
> > > > > @@ -68,7 +68,8 @@ static unsigned do_csum(const unsigned char *buff, unsigned len)
> > > > > zero = 0;
> > > > > count64 = count >> 3;
> > > > > while (count64) {
> > > > > - asm("addq 0*8(%[src]),%[res]\n\t"
> > > > > + asm("prefetch 5*64(%[src])\n\t"
> > > >
> > > > Might the prefetch size be too big here?
> > >
> > > To be effective, you need to prefetch well ahead of time.
> >
> > No doubt.
>
> So why did you ask then?
>
> > > 5*64 seems common practice (check arch/x86/lib/copy_page_64.S)
> >
> > 5 cachelines for some processors seems like a lot.
>
> What processors would that be?

The ones where conservatism in L1 cache use is good
because there are multiple threads running concurrently.

> Most processors have hundreds of cachelines even in their L1 cache.

And sometimes that many executable processes too.

> Thousands in the L2 cache, up to hundreds of thousands.

Irrelevant because prefetch doesn't apply there.

Ingo, Eric _showed_ that the prefetch is good here.
How about looking at a little optimization to the minimal
prefetch that gives that level of performance.

You could argue that prefetching PAGE_SIZE or larger
would be better still otherwise.

I suspect that using a smaller multiple of
L1_CACHE_BYTES like 2 or 3 would perform the same.

The last time it was looked at for copy_page_64.S was
quite awhile ago. It looks like maybe 2003.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-15 19:01    [W:0.343 / U:0.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site