[PATCH 1/3] riscv: optimized memcpy
akira.tsukamoto at gmail.com
Wed Jun 16 03:48:22 PDT 2021
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 5:24 PM David Laight <David.Laight at aculab.com> wrote:
> From: Matteo Croce
> > Sent: 16 June 2021 03:02
> > > > That's a good idea, but if you read the replies to Gary's original
> > > > patch
> > > > https://firstname.lastname@example.org/
> > > > .. both Gary, Palmer and David would rather like a C-based version.
> > > > This is one attempt at providing that.
> > >
> > > Yep, I prefer C as well :)
> > >
> > > But if you check commit 04091d6, the assembly version was introduced
> > > for KASAN. So if we are to change it back to C, please make sure KASAN
> > > is not broken.
> > >
> > Leaving out the first memcpy/set of every test which is always slower, (maybe
> > because of a cache miss?), the current implementation copies 260 Mb/s when
> > the low order bits match, and 114 otherwise.
> > Memset is stable at 278 Mb/s.
> > Gary's implementation is much faster, copies still 260 Mb/s when euqlly placed,
> > and 230 Mb/s otherwise. Memset is the same as the current one.
> Any idea what the attainable performance is for the cpu you are using?
> Since both memset and memcpy are running at much the same speed
> I suspect it is all limited by the writes.
> 272MB/s is only 34M writes/sec.
> This seems horribly slow for a modern cpu.
> So is this actually really limited by the cache writes to physical memory?
> You might want to do some tests (userspace is fine) where you
> check much smaller lengths that definitely sit within the data cache.
> It is also worth checking how much overhead there is for
> short copies - they are almost certainly more common than
> you might expect.
> This is one problem with excessive loop unrolling - the 'special
> cases' for the ends of the buffer start having a big effect
> on small copies.
> For cpu that support misaligned memory accesses, one 'trick'
> for transfers longer than a 'word' is to do a (probably) misaligned
> transfer of the last word of the buffer first followed by the
> transfer of the rest of the buffer (overlapping a few bytes at the end).
> This saves on conditionals and temporary values.
I am fine with Matteo's memcpy.
The two culprits seen by the `perf top -Ue task-clock` output during the
tcp and ucp network are
> Overhead Shared O Symbol
> 42.22% [kernel] [k] memcpy
> 35.00% [kernel] [k] __asm_copy_to_user
so we really need to optimize both memcpy and __asm_copy_to_user.
The main reason of speed up in memcpy is that
> The Gary's assembly version of memcpy is improving by not using unaligned
> access in 64 bit boundary, uses shifting it after reading with offset of
> aligned access, because every misaligned access is trapped and switches to
> opensbi in M-mode. The main speed up is coming from avoiding S-mode (kernel)
> and M-mode (opensbi) switching.
which are in the code:
+ /* Calculate shifts */
+ slli t3, a3, 3
+ sub t4, x0, t3 /* negate is okay as shift will only look at LSBs */
+ /* Load the initial value and align a1 */
+ andi a1, a1, ~(SZREG-1)
+ REG_L a5, 0(a1)
+ addi t0, t0, -(SZREG-1)
+ /* At least one iteration will be executed here, no check */
+ srl a4, a5, t3
+ REG_L a5, SZREG(a1)
+ addi a1, a1, SZREG
+ sll a2, a5, t4
+ or a2, a2, a4
+ REG_S a2, 0(a0)
+ addi a0, a0, SZREG
+ bltu a0, t0, 1b
and Matteo ported to C:
+#pragma GCC unroll 8
+ for (next = s.ulong; count >= bytes_long + mask; count -=
+ last = next;
+ next = s.ulong;
+ d.ulong = last >> (distance * 8) |
+ next << ((bytes_long - distance) * 8);
I believe this is reasonable and enough to be in the upstream.
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
More information about the linux-riscv