MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211125193852.3617-1-goldstein.w.n@gmail.com>
 <CANn89iLnH5B11CtzZ14nMFP7b--7aOfnQqgmsER+NYNzvnVurQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFUsyfK-znRWJN7FTMdJaDTd45DgtBQ9ckKGyh8qYqn0eFMMFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANn89iJA1JOevgLSK019VYXKkLJsMjV-u9ZHvrgZ+XUypRWwfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFUsyfLeVGW8etXHuSGvYy_RoS3RGaA1L+NLKnpc7EsSMVORBg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFUsyfLeVGW8etXHuSGvYy_RoS3RGaA1L+NLKnpc7EsSMVORBg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Nov 2021 10:27:06 -0800
Message-ID: <CANn89iJxMhGfp364rPu6p_ZLrKnM1qWF_NWrw4_oL_KG+piByg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] x86/lib: Optimize 8x loop and memory clobbers in csum_partial.c
To:     Noah Goldstein <goldstein.w.n@gmail.com>
Cc:     tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
        X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, hpa@zytor.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        alexanderduyck@fb.com, open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 10:17 AM Noah Goldstein <goldstein.w.n@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>
> Makes sense. Although if you inline I think you definitely will want a more
> conservative clobber than just "memory". Also I think with 40 you also will
> get some value from two counters.
>
> Did you see the number/question I posted about two accumulators for 32
> byte case?
> Its a judgement call about latency vs throughput that I don't really have an
> answer for.
>

The thing I do not know is if using more units would slow down the
hyper thread ?

Would using ADCX/ADOX would be better in this respect ?