From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from foss.arm.com (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com [217.140.101.70]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC50A1B1B3 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 06:33:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D83DA80D; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 21:33:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from lenovo-a010984.shanghai.arm.com (lenovo-a010984.shanghai.arm.com [10.169.40.44]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 42BD83F41F; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 21:33:53 -0800 (PST) From: Herbert Guan To: dev@dpdk.org, jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com Cc: Herbert Guan Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 13:33:47 +0800 Message-Id: <1513834427-12635-1-git-send-email-herbert.guan@arm.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.8.3.1 In-Reply-To: <1513565664-19509-1-git-send-email-herbert.guan@arm.com> References: <1513565664-19509-1-git-send-email-herbert.guan@arm.com> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] arch/arm: optimization for memcpy on AArch64 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 05:33:55 -0000 This patch provides an option to do rte_memcpy() using 'restrict' qualifier, which can induce GCC to do optimizations by using more efficient instructions, providing some performance gain over memcpy() on some AArch64 platforms/enviroments. The memory copy performance differs between different AArch64 platforms. And a more recent glibc (e.g. 2.23 or later) can provide a better memcpy() performance compared to old glibc versions. It's always suggested to use a more recent glibc if possible, from which the entire system can get benefit. If for some reason an old glibc has to be used, this patch is provided for an alternative. This implementation can improve memory copy on some AArch64 platforms, when an old glibc (e.g. 2.19, 2.17...) is being used. It is disabled by default and needs "RTE_ARCH_ARM64_MEMCPY" defined to activate. It's not always proving better performance than memcpy() so users need to run DPDK unit test "memcpy_perf_autotest" and customize parameters in "customization section" in rte_memcpy_64.h for best performance. Compiler version will also impact the rte_memcpy() performance. It's observed on some platforms and with the same code, GCC 7.2.0 compiled binary can provide better performance than GCC 4.8.5. It's suggested to use GCC 5.4.0 or later. Signed-off-by: Herbert Guan --- config/common_armv8a_linuxapp | 6 + .../common/include/arch/arm/rte_memcpy_64.h | 287 +++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 293 insertions(+) diff --git a/config/common_armv8a_linuxapp b/config/common_armv8a_linuxapp index 6732d1e..8f0cbed 100644 --- a/config/common_armv8a_linuxapp +++ b/config/common_armv8a_linuxapp @@ -44,6 +44,12 @@ CONFIG_RTE_FORCE_INTRINSICS=y # to address minimum DMA alignment across all arm64 implementations. CONFIG_RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE=128 +# Accelarate rte_memcpy. Be sure to run unit test to determine the +# best threshold in code. Refer to notes in source file +# (lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/arm/rte_memcpy_64.h) for more +# info. +CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_ARM64_MEMCPY=n + CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_FM10K_PMD=n CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_SFC_EFX_PMD=n CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_AVP_PMD=n diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/arm/rte_memcpy_64.h b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/arm/rte_memcpy_64.h index b80d8ba..b269f34 100644 --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/arm/rte_memcpy_64.h +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/arm/rte_memcpy_64.h @@ -42,6 +42,291 @@ #include "generic/rte_memcpy.h" +#ifdef RTE_ARCH_ARM64_MEMCPY +#include +#include + +/* + * The memory copy performance differs on different AArch64 micro-architectures. + * And the most recent glibc (e.g. 2.23 or later) can provide a better memcpy() + * performance compared to old glibc versions. It's always suggested to use a + * more recent glibc if possible, from which the entire system can get benefit. + * + * This implementation improves memory copy on some aarch64 micro-architectures, + * when an old glibc (e.g. 2.19, 2.17...) is being used. It is disabled by + * default and needs "RTE_ARCH_ARM64_MEMCPY" defined to activate. It's not + * always providing better performance than memcpy() so users need to run unit + * test "memcpy_perf_autotest" and customize parameters in customization section + * below for best performance. + * + * Compiler version will also impact the rte_memcpy() performance. It's observed + * on some platforms and with the same code, GCC 7.2.0 compiled binaries can + * provide better performance than GCC 4.8.5 compiled binaries. + */ + +/************************************** + * Beginning of customization section + **************************************/ +#define RTE_ARM64_MEMCPY_ALIGN_MASK 0x0F +#ifndef RTE_ARCH_ARM64_MEMCPY_STRICT_ALIGN +/* Only src unalignment will be treaed as unaligned copy */ +#define IS_UNALIGNED_COPY(dst, src) \ + ((uintptr_t)(dst) & RTE_ARM64_MEMCPY_ALIGN_MASK) +#else +/* Both dst and src unalignment will be treated as unaligned copy */ +#define IS_UNALIGNED_COPY(dst, src) \ + (((uintptr_t)(dst) | (uintptr_t)(src)) & RTE_ARM64_MEMCPY_ALIGN_MASK) +#endif + + +/* + * If copy size is larger than threshold, memcpy() will be used. + * Run "memcpy_perf_autotest" to determine the proper threshold. + */ +#define RTE_ARM64_MEMCPY_ALIGNED_THRESHOLD ((size_t)(0xffffffff)) +#define RTE_ARM64_MEMCPY_UNALIGNED_THRESHOLD ((size_t)(0xffffffff)) + +/* + * The logic of USE_RTE_MEMCPY() can also be modified to best fit platform. + */ +#define USE_RTE_MEMCPY(dst, src, n) \ +((!IS_UNALIGNED_COPY(dst, src) && n <= RTE_ARM64_MEMCPY_ALIGNED_THRESHOLD) \ +|| (IS_UNALIGNED_COPY(dst, src) && n <= RTE_ARM64_MEMCPY_UNALIGNED_THRESHOLD)) + + +/************************************** + * End of customization section + **************************************/ +#if defined(RTE_TOOLCHAIN_GCC) && !defined(RTE_AARCH64_SKIP_GCC_VERSION_CHECK) +#if (GCC_VERSION < 50400) +#warning "The GCC version is quite old, which may result in sub-optimal \ +performance of the compiled code. It is suggested that at least GCC 5.4.0 \ +be used." +#endif +#endif + +static __rte_always_inline void rte_mov16(uint8_t *dst, const uint8_t *src) +{ + __uint128_t *dst128 = (__uint128_t *)dst; + const __uint128_t *src128 = (const __uint128_t *)src; + *dst128 = *src128; +} + +static __rte_always_inline void rte_mov32(uint8_t *dst, const uint8_t *src) +{ + __uint128_t *dst128 = (__uint128_t *)dst; + const __uint128_t *src128 = (const __uint128_t *)src; + const __uint128_t x0 = src128[0], x1 = src128[1]; + dst128[0] = x0; + dst128[1] = x1; +} + +static __rte_always_inline void rte_mov48(uint8_t *dst, const uint8_t *src) +{ + __uint128_t *dst128 = (__uint128_t *)dst; + const __uint128_t *src128 = (const __uint128_t *)src; + const __uint128_t x0 = src128[0], x1 = src128[1], x2 = src128[2]; + dst128[0] = x0; + dst128[1] = x1; + dst128[2] = x2; +} + +static __rte_always_inline void rte_mov64(uint8_t *dst, const uint8_t *src) +{ + __uint128_t *dst128 = (__uint128_t *)dst; + const __uint128_t *src128 = (const __uint128_t *)src; + const __uint128_t + x0 = src128[0], x1 = src128[1], x2 = src128[2], x3 = src128[3]; + dst128[0] = x0; + dst128[1] = x1; + dst128[2] = x2; + dst128[3] = x3; +} + +static __rte_always_inline void rte_mov128(uint8_t *dst, const uint8_t *src) +{ + __uint128_t *dst128 = (__uint128_t *)dst; + const __uint128_t *src128 = (const __uint128_t *)src; + /* Keep below declaration & copy sequence for optimized instructions */ + const __uint128_t + x0 = src128[0], x1 = src128[1], x2 = src128[2], x3 = src128[3]; + dst128[0] = x0; + __uint128_t x4 = src128[4]; + dst128[1] = x1; + __uint128_t x5 = src128[5]; + dst128[2] = x2; + __uint128_t x6 = src128[6]; + dst128[3] = x3; + __uint128_t x7 = src128[7]; + dst128[4] = x4; + dst128[5] = x5; + dst128[6] = x6; + dst128[7] = x7; +} + +static __rte_always_inline void rte_mov256(uint8_t *dst, const uint8_t *src) +{ + rte_mov128(dst, src); + rte_mov128(dst + 128, src + 128); +} + +static __rte_always_inline void +rte_memcpy_lt16(uint8_t *dst, const uint8_t *src, size_t n) +{ + if (n & 0x08) { + /* copy 8 ~ 15 bytes */ + *(uint64_t *)dst = *(const uint64_t *)src; + *(uint64_t *)(dst - 8 + n) = *(const uint64_t *)(src - 8 + n); + } else if (n & 0x04) { + /* copy 4 ~ 7 bytes */ + *(uint32_t *)dst = *(const uint32_t *)src; + *(uint32_t *)(dst - 4 + n) = *(const uint32_t *)(src - 4 + n); + } else if (n & 0x02) { + /* copy 2 ~ 3 bytes */ + *(uint16_t *)dst = *(const uint16_t *)src; + *(uint16_t *)(dst - 2 + n) = *(const uint16_t *)(src - 2 + n); + } else if (n & 0x01) { + /* copy 1 byte */ + *dst = *src; + } +} + +static __rte_always_inline void +rte_memcpy_ge16_lt128(uint8_t *dst, const uint8_t *src, size_t n) +{ + if (n < 64) { + if (n == 16) { + rte_mov16(dst, src); + } else if (n <= 32) { + rte_mov16(dst, src); + rte_mov16(dst - 16 + n, src - 16 + n); + } else if (n <= 48) { + rte_mov32(dst, src); + rte_mov16(dst - 16 + n, src - 16 + n); + } else { + rte_mov48(dst, src); + rte_mov16(dst - 16 + n, src - 16 + n); + } + } else { + rte_mov64((uint8_t *)dst, (const uint8_t *)src); + if (n > 48 + 64) + rte_mov64(dst - 64 + n, src - 64 + n); + else if (n > 32 + 64) + rte_mov48(dst - 48 + n, src - 48 + n); + else if (n > 16 + 64) + rte_mov32(dst - 32 + n, src - 32 + n); + else if (n > 64) + rte_mov16(dst - 16 + n, src - 16 + n); + } +} + +static __rte_always_inline void +rte_memcpy_ge128(uint8_t *dst, const uint8_t *src, size_t n) +{ + do { + rte_mov128(dst, src); + src += 128; + dst += 128; + n -= 128; + } while (likely(n >= 128)); + + if (likely(n)) { + if (n <= 16) + rte_mov16(dst - 16 + n, src - 16 + n); + else if (n <= 32) + rte_mov32(dst - 32 + n, src - 32 + n); + else if (n <= 48) + rte_mov48(dst - 48 + n, src - 48 + n); + else if (n <= 64) + rte_mov64(dst - 64 + n, src - 64 + n); + else + rte_memcpy_ge16_lt128(dst, src, n); + } +} + +static __rte_always_inline void +rte_memcpy_ge16_lt64(uint8_t *dst, const uint8_t *src, size_t n) +{ + if (n == 16) { + rte_mov16(dst, src); + } else if (n <= 32) { + rte_mov16(dst, src); + rte_mov16(dst - 16 + n, src - 16 + n); + } else if (n <= 48) { + rte_mov32(dst, src); + rte_mov16(dst - 16 + n, src - 16 + n); + } else { + rte_mov48(dst, src); + rte_mov16(dst - 16 + n, src - 16 + n); + } +} + +static __rte_always_inline void +rte_memcpy_ge64(uint8_t *dst, const uint8_t *src, size_t n) +{ + do { + rte_mov64(dst, src); + src += 64; + dst += 64; + n -= 64; + } while (likely(n >= 64)); + + if (likely(n)) { + if (n <= 16) + rte_mov16(dst - 16 + n, src - 16 + n); + else if (n <= 32) + rte_mov32(dst - 32 + n, src - 32 + n); + else if (n <= 48) + rte_mov48(dst - 48 + n, src - 48 + n); + else + rte_mov64(dst - 64 + n, src - 64 + n); + } +} + +#if RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE >= 128 +static __rte_always_inline void * +rte_memcpy(void *dst, const void *src, size_t n) +{ + if (n < 16) { + rte_memcpy_lt16((uint8_t *)dst, (const uint8_t *)src, n); + return dst; + } + if (n < 128) { + rte_memcpy_ge16_lt128((uint8_t *)dst, (const uint8_t *)src, n); + return dst; + } + __builtin_prefetch(src, 0, 0); + __builtin_prefetch(dst, 1, 0); + if (likely(USE_RTE_MEMCPY(dst, src, n))) { + rte_memcpy_ge128((uint8_t *)dst, (const uint8_t *)src, n); + return dst; + } else + return memcpy(dst, src, n); +} + +#else +static __rte_always_inline void * +rte_memcpy(void *dst, const void *src, size_t n) +{ + if (n < 16) { + rte_memcpy_lt16((uint8_t *)dst, (const uint8_t *)src, n); + return dst; + } + if (n < 64) { + rte_memcpy_ge16_lt64((uint8_t *)dst, (const uint8_t *)src, n); + return dst; + } + __builtin_prefetch(src, 0, 0); + __builtin_prefetch(dst, 1, 0); + if (likely(USE_RTE_MEMCPY(dst, src, n))) { + rte_memcpy_ge64((uint8_t *)dst, (const uint8_t *)src, n); + return dst; + } else + return memcpy(dst, src, n); +} +#endif /* RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE >= 128 */ + +#else static inline void rte_mov16(uint8_t *dst, const uint8_t *src) { @@ -80,6 +365,8 @@ #define rte_memcpy(d, s, n) memcpy((d), (s), (n)) +#endif /* RTE_ARCH_ARM64_MEMCPY */ + #ifdef __cplusplus } #endif -- 1.8.3.1