Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Sender: Arvind Sankar <niveditas98@gmail.com>
From:   Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
Date:   Sun, 25 Oct 2020 19:53:49 -0400
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
Cc:     'Arvind Sankar' <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] crypto: lib/sha256 - Unroll LOAD and BLEND loops
Message-ID: <20201025235349.GA1281192@rani.riverdale.lan>
References: <20201025143119.1054168-1-nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
 <20201025143119.1054168-7-nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
 <05150bdb3a4c4b2682ab9cb8fb2ed411@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <20201025201820.GA1237388@rani.riverdale.lan>
 <5d8f86fcfe84441fa5c9877959069ff1@AcuMS.aculab.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5d8f86fcfe84441fa5c9877959069ff1@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 11:23:52PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Arvind Sankar
> > Sent: 25 October 2020 20:18
> > 
> > On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 06:51:18PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > From: Arvind Sankar
> > > > Sent: 25 October 2020 14:31
> > > >
> > > > Unrolling the LOAD and BLEND loops improves performance by ~8% on x86_64
> > > > (tested on Broadwell Xeon) while not increasing code size too much.
> > >
> > > I can't believe unrolling the BLEND loop makes any difference.
> > 
> > It's actually the BLEND loop that accounts for almost all of the
> > difference. The LOAD loop doesn't matter much in general: even replacing
> > it with a plain memcpy() only increases performance by 3-4%. But
> > unrolling it is low cost in code size terms, and clang actually does it
> > without being asked.
> 
> (memcpy is wrong - misses the byte swaps).

I know it's wrong, the point is that it's impossible to gain very much
from optimizing the LOAD loop because it doesn't account for much of the
total time.

> 
> That's odd, the BLEND loop is about 20 instructions.
> I wouldn't expect unrolling to help - unless you manage
> to use 16 registers for the active W[] values.
> 

I am not sure about what's going on inside the hardware, but even with
a straightforward assembly version that just reads out of memory the way
the calculation is specified, unrolling the BLEND loop 8x speeds up the
performance by 7-8%.

The compiler is actually pretty bad here, just translating everything
into assembler with no attempt to optimize anything gets a 10-12%
speedup over the C version.