Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:f347:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id d7csp3848244pxu; Sun, 20 Dec 2020 18:47:42 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwmbopOV5P/uMdLQ7rPzCE0lUxA6rw9XT84Vus38xiRuWBbkcS9xSqEcG5hxEmYEXygmDUb X-Received: by 2002:a50:ee97:: with SMTP id f23mr13740499edr.311.1608518861994; Sun, 20 Dec 2020 18:47:41 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1608518861; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=1HBKV49vwcUMv3g7kF1svK38MyoWivkaoivuA3a4VMuspJ73j5Em9QuUu0/afQtkY/ QctHBQnEDgzKddKhwL3qTlxgDnlZhJvd9WWVveIhF9I8nPReoSFAgkPgQvgX1w10YJy8 lyT2onfnBu6AYOufSfZNOBH0U8ODMDiAEcAxw4jL3AYG1SPblqhl41qWws8cocvLrMVY cyGS0azpXobV4/iXfhQz8BGaw8BdbNiiDsg4o/pDi5xzDpebLCuPQwZ1eoxRnkIHwQPH PHW6ae/mtOIEG5pHT/A0cpOJvVUZ2p6KNzdr1vLXs6eMqVUOpg97obUe+88e3WKpBQw+ KfUA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :message-id:references:in-reply-to:user-agent:subject:cc:to:from :date; bh=6z5jJBer/3ajbZSTFU63j8uehSawjyq0VzChtGZ9m/8=; b=SGSQrNP3c7ASgwSDXArThiZiVoijpXs+4m/MvI0vKejtyDdh61+MRU6goCGT1TC8u/ 4zAVdNpExiOZ+j5m5BDDZzqwh9CdjUOWQZax9qYtiQ9DoVFKoTc7fjhHjV9vKL2R5qtN HmchrOhVlk0bwWjABpXsho1zKV7+97HfmD7sv2HSNzmp18YwP7dzXF9F6EJ/Y5RZxrgf VClcuaO8AZ+pz7aezhCxol0nO1nzcICRQYl2gkxfjDR6AP/tOXsJSD/NtYiSDYB2t1bp YZuXcdRlfsLF0YwNcHSfGsCEc+q+JXe6tKWLntA9Ax3ctTlcVEhhJX9DIpsrcAMXapQW z6Rg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id mm17si8788881ejb.131.2020.12.20.18.47.18; Sun, 20 Dec 2020 18:47:41 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727036AbgLUCrQ (ORCPT + 99 others); Sun, 20 Dec 2020 21:47:16 -0500 Received: from ZXSHCAS1.zhaoxin.com ([203.148.12.81]:39850 "EHLO ZXSHCAS1.zhaoxin.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725497AbgLUCrQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Dec 2020 21:47:16 -0500 Received: from zxbjmbx1.zhaoxin.com (10.29.252.163) by ZXSHCAS1.zhaoxin.com (10.28.252.161) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1979.3; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 10:46:28 +0800 Received: from [192.168.0.102] (113.201.128.11) by zxbjmbx1.zhaoxin.com (10.29.252.163) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1979.3; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 10:46:26 +0800 Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 10:46:25 +0800 From: To: Eric Biggers CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto: x86/crc32c-intel - Don't match some Zhaoxin CPUs User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <1607686144-2604-1-git-send-email-TonyWWang-oc@zhaoxin.com> <1f8d17bf-c1d9-6496-d2f8-5773633011fb@zhaoxin.com> Message-ID: <345BC725-406B-40C6-88E9-747DBEBE0493@zhaoxin.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [113.201.128.11] X-ClientProxiedBy: ZXSHCAS1.zhaoxin.com (10.28.252.161) To zxbjmbx1.zhaoxin.com (10.29.252.163) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org On December 16, 2020 1:56:45 AM GMT+08:00, Eric Biggers wrote: >On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 10:15:29AM +0800, Tony W Wang-oc wrote: >> >> On 15/12/2020 04:41, Eric Biggers wrote: >> > 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 >> >>> >> >>> 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? >> > >> >> Yes. Was testing on these Zhaoxin CPUs, the result is that with the >same >> input value the generic C implementation takes fewer time than the >> crc32c instruction implementation. >> > >And that is really "working as intended"? These CPU's crc32c instruction is not working as intended. Why do these CPUs even >declare that >they support the crc32c instruction, when it is so slow? > The presence of crc32c and some other instructions supports are enumerated by CPUID.01:ECX[SSE4.2] = 1, other instructions are ok except the crc32c instruction. >Are there any other instruction sets (AES-NI, PCLMUL, SSE, SSE2, AVX, >etc.) that >these CPUs similarly declare support for but they are uselessly slow? No. Sincerely Tonyw > >- Eric