Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <8af0245c1efbec6ae4ac3d2b14d6e819cb28b98e.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Performance Improvement in CRC16 Calculations.
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        Jeff Lien <jeff.lien@wdc.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com,
        david.darrington@wdc.com, jeff.furlong@wdc.com
Date:   Sat, 11 Aug 2018 09:35:42 -0700
In-Reply-To: <yq1in4gq5jf.fsf@oracle.com>
References: <1533928331-21303-1-git-send-email-jeff.lien@wdc.com>
         <yq1in4gq5jf.fsf@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 2018-08-11 at 11:36 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> Jeff,
> 
> > This patch provides a performance improvement for the CRC16
> > calculations done in read/write workloads using the T10 Type 1/2/3
> > guard field.  For example, today with sequential write workloads (one
> > thread/CPU of IO) we consume 100% of the CPU because of the CRC16
> > computation bottleneck.  Today's block devices are considerably
> > faster, but the CRC16 calculation prevents folks from utilizing the
> > throughput of such devices.  To speed up this calculation and expose
> > the block device throughput, we slice the old single byte for loop
> > into a 16 byte for loop, with a larger CRC table to match.  The result
> > has shown 5x performance improvements on various big endian and little
> > endian systems running the 4.18.0 kernel version.
> 
> The reason I went with a simple slice-by-one approach was that the
> larger tables had a negative impact on the CPU caches. So while
> slice-by-N numbers looked better in synthetic benchmarks, actual
> application performance started getting affected as the tables grew
> larger.
> 
> These days we obviously use the hardware-accelerated CRC calculation so
> the software table approach mostly serves as a reference
> implementation. But given your big vs. little endian performance
> metrics, I'm assuming you guys are focused on embedded processors
> without support for CRC acceleration?
> 
> I have no problem providing a choice for bigger tables. My only concern
> is that the selection heuristics need to be more than one-dimensional.
> Latency and cache side effects are often more important than throughput.
> At least on the initiator side.
> 
> Also, I'd like to keep the original slice-by-one implementation for
> reference purposes.

Did you see the suggested patch that allows
either 1, 2, 4, 8 or 16 block table sizes?

Perhaps you have a comment on that?