Re: [dpdk-dev] rte_ether_addr_copy() strange comment

["Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>]

> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ferruh Yigit
> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 2:08 PM
> 
> On 6/25/2020 4:45 PM, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > The function rte_ether_addr_copy() checks for __INTEL_COMPILER and
> has a comment about "a strange gcc warning". It says:
> >
> > static inline void rte_ether_addr_copy(const struct rte_ether_addr
> *ea_from,
> > 				   struct rte_ether_addr *ea_to)
> > {
> > #ifdef __INTEL_COMPILER
> > 	uint16_t *from_words = (uint16_t *)(ea_from->addr_bytes);
> > 	uint16_t *to_words   = (uint16_t *)(ea_to->addr_bytes);
> >
> > 	to_words[0] = from_words[0];
> > 	to_words[1] = from_words[1];
> > 	to_words[2] = from_words[2];
> > #else
> > 	/*
> > 	 * Use the common way, because of a strange gcc warning.
> > 	 */
> > 	*ea_to = *ea_from;
> > #endif
> > }
> >
> > I can see that from_words discards the const qualifier. Is that the
> "strange" gcc warning the comment is referring to?
> >
> > This goes back to before the first public release of DPDK in 2013,
> ref. https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/log/lib/librte_ether/rte_ether.h
> >
> >
> > It should be fixed as follows:
> >
> > -	uint16_t *from_words = (uint16_t *)(ea_from->addr_bytes);
> > -	uint16_t *to_words   = (uint16_t *)(ea_to->addr_bytes);
> > +	const uint16_t *from_words = (const uint16_t *)ea_from;
> > +	uint16_t       *to_words   = (uint16_t *)ea_to;
> >
> > And the consequential question: Is copying the three shorts faster
> than copying the struct? In other words: Should we get rid of the
> #ifdef and use the first method only?
> 
> 
> I tried to investigate this in godbolt: https://godbolt.org/z/YSmvDn
> 
> First I don't see the "strange" gcc warning with various gcc versions
> there.
> 
> Related to the struct copy vs word copy, struct copy seems with less
> instruction
> [1],[2],
> my vote to remove ifdef and keep struct copy.
> 
> 
> [1] copy as individual function
> [1a] gcc 10.1, struct copy:
> copy:
>         movdqa  (%rsi), %xmm0
>         movaps  %xmm0, (%rdi)
>         ret
> 
> [1b] gcc 10.1, word copy:
> copy:
>         movzwl  (%rsi), %eax
>         movw    %ax, (%rdi)
>         movzwl  2(%rsi), %eax
>         movw    %ax, 2(%rdi)
>         movzwl  4(%rsi), %eax
>         movw    %ax, 4(%rdi)
>         ret
> 
> [1c] icc 19.0.1, struct copy
> copy:
>         movups    (%rsi), %xmm0                                 #19.13
>         movups    %xmm0, (%rdi)                                 #19.13
>         ret
> 
> 
> [2] gcc 10.1, copy as inline function that knows the data, both seems
> similar
> // .addr = {1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1},
> [2a] struct copy:
> ...
>         movl    $257, %eax
>         movw    %ax, 4(%rsp)
>         leaq    16(%rsp), %rdi
>         movl    $16843009, (%rsp)
>         movdqa  (%rsp), %xmm0
>         movaps  %xmm0, 16(%rsp)
> ...
> 
> [2b] word copy:
>         movl    $257, %eax
>         movq    %rsp, %rdi
>         movw    %ax, 4(%rsp)
>         movl    $16843009, (%rsp)
> 

Thank you for the detailed response, Ferruh.

I didn't know about godbolt, so thank you for that reference too.

The address struct is 2 byte aligned, not 16 byte aligned. Modifying your test in godbolt to use 2 byte alignment gives a similar result, i.e. fewer instructions on both icc and gcc.

[1c-modified] icc 19.0.1, struct copy

copy:
        movl      (%rsi), %eax                                  #19.13
        movl      %eax, (%rdi)                                  #19.13
        movzwl    4(%rsi), %edx                                 #19.13
        movw      %dx, 4(%rdi)                                  #19.13
        ret                                                     #28.1

[1d-modified] icc 19.0.1, word copy
copy:
        movzwl    (%rsi), %eax                                  #24.12
        movw      %ax, (%rdi)                                   #24.5
        movzwl    2(%rsi), %edx                                 #25.12
        movw      %dx, 2(%rdi)                                  #25.5
        movzwl    4(%rsi), %ecx                                 #26.12
        movw      %cx, 4(%rdi)                                  #26.5
        ret                                                     #28.1

Testing for ARM64 on godbolt gives a similar result: more instructions using word copy than struct copy.

In conclusion, I will proceed with the struct copy.