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;
Date:   Mon, 14 Dec 2020 12:41:18 -0800
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To:     Tony W Wang-oc <TonyWWang-oc@zhaoxin.com>
Cc:     herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, davem@davemloft.net,
        tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, x86@kernel.org,
        hpa@zytor.com, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, TimGuo-oc@zhaoxin.com,
        CooperYan@zhaoxin.com, QiyuanWang@zhaoxin.com,
        HerryYang@zhaoxin.com, CobeChen@zhaoxin.com, SilviaZhao@zhaoxin.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto: x86/crc32c-intel - Don't match some Zhaoxin CPUs
Message-ID: <X9fN7mOMdn1Dxn63@sol.localdomain>
References: <1607686144-2604-1-git-send-email-TonyWWang-oc@zhaoxin.com>
 <X9Ov3RWDpUik7gXo@sol.localdomain>
 <1f8d17bf-c1d9-6496-d2f8-5773633011fb@zhaoxin.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1f8d17bf-c1d9-6496-d2f8-5773633011fb@zhaoxin.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 10:28:19AM +0800, Tony W Wang-oc wrote:
> On 12/12/2020 01:43, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 07:29:04PM +0800, Tony W Wang-oc wrote:
> >> The driver crc32c-intel match CPUs supporting X86_FEATURE_XMM4_2.
> >> On platforms with Zhaoxin CPUs supporting this X86 feature, When
> >> crc32c-intel and crc32c-generic are both registered, system will
> >> use crc32c-intel because its .cra_priority is greater than
> >> crc32c-generic. This case expect to use crc32c-generic driver for
> >> some Zhaoxin CPUs to get performance gain, So remove these Zhaoxin
> >> CPUs support from crc32c-intel.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tony W Wang-oc <TonyWWang-oc@zhaoxin.com>
> > 
> > Does this mean that the performance of the crc32c instruction on those CPUs is
> > actually slower than a regular C implementation?  That's very weird.
> > 
> 
> From the lmbench3 Create and Delete file test on those chips, I think yes.
> 

Did you try measuring the performance of the hashing itself, and not some
higher-level filesystem operations?

- Eric