Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To:     'Segher Boessenkool' <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
CC:     'Christophe Leroy' <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] net: Remove branch in csum_shift()
Thread-Topic: [PATCH] net: Remove branch in csum_shift()
Thread-Index: AQHYHyQqmTo4K/pb5UWdDmTfE7rfRayQxWFwgABxD4CAAIxicA==
Date:   Sun, 13 Feb 2022 17:47:52 +0000
Message-ID: <476aa649389345db92f86e9103a848be@AcuMS.aculab.com>
References: <efeeb0b9979b0377cd313311ad29cf0ac060ae4b.1644569106.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
 <7f16910a8f63475dae012ef5135f41d1@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <20220213091619.GY614@gate.crashing.org>
In-Reply-To: <20220213091619.GY614@gate.crashing.org>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

From: Segher Boessenkool 
> Sent: 13 February 2022 09:16
....
> 
> > What happens on x86-64?
> >
> > Trying to do the same in the x86 ipcsum code tended to make the code worse.
> > (Although that test is for an odd length fragment and can just be removed.)
> 
> In an ideal world the compiler could choose the optimal code sequences
> everywhere.  But that won't ever happen, the search space is way too
> big.  So compilers just use heuristics, not exhaustive search like
> superopt does.  There is a middle way of course, something with directed
> searches, and maybe in a few decades systems will be fast enough.  Until
> then we will very often see code that is 10% slower and 30% bigger than
> necessary.  A single insn more than needed isn't so bad :-)

But it can be a lot more than that.

> Making things branch-free is very much worth it here though!

I tried to find out where 'here' is.

I can't get godbolt to generate anything like that object code
for a call to csum_shift().

I can't actually get it to issue a rotate (x86 of ppc).

I think it is only a single instruction because the compiler
has saved 'offset & 1' much earlier instead of doing testing
'offset & 1' just prior to the conditional.
It certainly has a nasty habit of doing that pessimisation.

So while it helps a specific call site it may be much
worse in general.

I also suspect that the addc/addze pair could be removed
by passing the old checksum into csum_partial.

	David

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