From: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula <pbhagavatula@caviumnetworks.com>
To: Herbert Guan <herbert.guan@arm.com>, jianbo.liu@arm.com
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] arch/arm: optimization for memcpy on AArch64
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 13:03:02 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171202073300.yozet72nnvlwrkgj@Pavan-LT> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1511768985-21639-1-git-send-email-herbert.guan@arm.com>
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 03:49:45PM +0800, Herbert Guan wrote:
> 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 <herbert.guan@arm.com>
> ---
> .../common/include/arch/arm/rte_memcpy_64.h | 193 +++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 193 insertions(+)
>
> 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..1f42b3c 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 +42,197 @@
>
> #include "generic/rte_memcpy.h"
>
> +#ifdef RTE_ARCH_ARM64_MEMCPY
There is an existing flag for arm32 to enable neon based memcpy
RTE_ARCH_ARM_NEON_MEMCPY we could reuse that here as restrict does the same.
> +#include <rte_common.h>
> +#include <rte_branch_prediction.h>
> +
> +/*******************************************************************************
> + * 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 ALIGNMENT_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) & ALIGNMENT_MASK)
We can use existing `rte_is_aligned` function instead.
> +#else
> +// Both dst and src unalignment will be treated as unaligned copy
> +#define IS_UNALIGNED_COPY(dst, src) \
> + (((uintptr_t)(dst) | (uintptr_t)(src)) & ALIGNMENT_MASK)
> +#endif
> +
> +
> +// If copy size is larger than threshold, memcpy() will be used.
> +// Run "memcpy_perf_autotest" to determine the proper threshold.
> +#define ALIGNED_THRESHOLD ((size_t)(0xffffffff))
> +#define UNALIGNED_THRESHOLD ((size_t)(0xffffffff))
> +
> +
> +/**************************************
> + * End of customization section
> + **************************************/
> +#ifdef RTE_TOOLCHAIN_GCC
> +#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 inline void __attribute__ ((__always_inline__))
use __rte_always_inline instead.
> +rte_mov16(uint8_t *restrict dst, const uint8_t *restrict src)
> +{
> + __int128 * restrict dst128 = (__int128 * restrict)dst;
> + const __int128 * restrict src128 = (const __int128 * restrict)src;
> + *dst128 = *src128;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void __attribute__ ((__always_inline__))
> +rte_mov64(uint8_t *restrict dst, const uint8_t *restrict src)
> +{
> + __int128 * restrict dst128 = (__int128 * restrict)dst;
ISO C does not support ‘__int128’ please use '__int128_t' or '__uint128_t'.
> + const __int128 * restrict src128 = (const __int128 * restrict)src;
> + dst128[0] = src128[0];
> + dst128[1] = src128[1];
> + dst128[2] = src128[2];
> + dst128[3] = src128[3];
> +}
> +
<snip>
Would doing this still benifit if size is compile time constant? i.e. when
__builtin_constant_p(n) is true.
> +
> +static inline void *__attribute__ ((__always_inline__))
> +rte_memcpy(void *restrict dst, const void *restrict 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(
> + (!IS_UNALIGNED_COPY(dst, src) && n <= ALIGNED_THRESHOLD)
> + || (IS_UNALIGNED_COPY(dst, src) && n <= UNALIGNED_THRESHOLD)
> + )) {
> + rte_memcpy_ge64((uint8_t *)dst, (const uint8_t *)src, n);
> + return dst;
> + } else
> + return memcpy(dst, src, n);
> +}
> +
> +
> +#else
> static inline void
> rte_mov16(uint8_t *dst, const uint8_t *src)
> {
> @@ -80,6 +271,8 @@
>
> #define rte_memcpy(d, s, n) memcpy((d), (s), (n))
>
> +#endif
> +
> #ifdef __cplusplus
> }
> #endif
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
Regards,
Pavan.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-02 7:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-27 7:49 Herbert Guan
2017-11-29 12:31 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-12-03 12:37 ` Herbert Guan
2017-12-15 4:06 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-12-18 2:51 ` Herbert Guan
2017-12-18 4:17 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-12-02 7:33 ` Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula [this message]
2017-12-03 12:38 ` Herbert Guan
2017-12-03 14:20 ` Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula
2017-12-04 7:14 ` Herbert Guan
2017-12-05 6:02 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Herbert Guan
2017-12-18 2:54 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " Herbert Guan
2017-12-18 7:43 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-12-19 5:33 ` Herbert Guan
2017-12-19 7:24 ` Jerin Jacob
2017-12-21 5:33 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] " Herbert Guan
2018-01-03 13:35 ` Jerin Jacob
2018-01-04 10:23 ` Herbert Guan
2018-01-04 10:20 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] " Herbert Guan
2018-01-12 17:03 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-15 10:57 ` Herbert Guan
2018-01-15 11:37 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-18 23:54 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-19 6:16 ` [dpdk-dev] 答复: " Herbert Guan
2018-01-19 6:10 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6] arch/arm: optimization for memcpy on ARM64 Herbert Guan
2018-01-20 16:21 ` Thomas Monjalon
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=20171202073300.yozet72nnvlwrkgj@Pavan-LT \
--to=pbhagavatula@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=herbert.guan@arm.com \
--cc=jianbo.liu@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).