public inbox for linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org 
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel•crashing.org>
To: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale•com>
Cc: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s•fr>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel•crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba•org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman•id.au>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists•ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger•kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] powerpc32: optimise csum_partial() loop
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 18:25:06 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150806232506.GB22196@gate.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1438901145.2097.170.camel@freescale.com>

On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 05:45:45PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > The original loop was already optimal, as the comment said.
> 
> The comment says that bdnz has zero overhead.  That doesn't mean the adde 
> won't stall waiting for the load result.

adde is execution serialising on those cores; it *always* stalls,
that is, it won't run until it is next to complete.

> > The new code adds extra instructions and a mispredicted branch.
> 
> Outside the main loop.

Sure, I never said it was super-bad or anything.

> >   You also might get less overlap between the loads and adde (I didn't check
> > if there is any originally): those instructions are no longer
> > interleaved.
> >
> > I think it is a stupid idea to optimise code for all 32-bit PowerPC
> > CPUs based on solely what is best for a particularly simple, slow
> > implementation; and that is what this patch is doing.
> 
> The simple and slow implementation is the one that needs optimizations the 
> most.

And, on the other hand, optimising for atypical (mostly) in-order
single-issue chips without branch folding, hurts performance on
other chips the most.  Well, dual-issue in-order might be worse :-P

> If this makes performance non-negligibly worse on other 32-bit chips, and is 
> an important improvement on 8xx, then we can use an ifdef since 8xx already 
> requires its own kernel build.  I'd prefer to see a benchmark showing that it 
> actually does make things worse on those chips, though.

And I'd like to see a benchmark that shows it *does not* hurt performance
on most chips, and does improve things on 8xx, and by how much.  But it
isn't *me* who has to show that, it is not my patch.

If these csum routines actually matter for performance that much, there
really *should* be chip-specific implementations.


Segher

  reply	other threads:[~2015-08-06 23:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-08-05 13:29 [PATCH v2 0/2] powerpc32: Optimise csum_partial() Christophe Leroy
2015-08-05 13:29 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] powerpc32: optimise a few instructions in csum_partial() Christophe Leroy
2015-08-05 13:29 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] powerpc32: optimise csum_partial() loop Christophe Leroy
2015-08-06  0:30   ` Segher Boessenkool
2015-08-06  2:31     ` Scott Wood
2015-08-06  4:39       ` Segher Boessenkool
2015-08-06 22:45         ` Scott Wood
2015-08-06 23:25           ` Segher Boessenkool [this message]
2015-08-17 10:56             ` leroy christophe
2015-08-17 11:00               ` leroy christophe
2015-08-17 13:05                 ` leroy christophe

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20150806232506.GB22196@gate.crashing.org \
    --to=segher@kernel$(echo .)crashing.org \
    --cc=benh@kernel$(echo .)crashing.org \
    --cc=christophe.leroy@c-s$(echo .)fr \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists$(echo .)ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman$(echo .)id.au \
    --cc=paulus@samba$(echo .)org \
    --cc=scottwood@freescale$(echo .)com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox