Re: [PATCH] net: optimize raw checksum computation

[Scott Mitchell <scott.k.mitch1@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 5:59 AM Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Scott Mitchell <scott.k.mitch1@gmail.com>
> >
> > Optimize __rte_raw_cksum() by processing data in larger unrolled loops
> > instead of iterating word-by-word. The new implementation processes
> > 64-byte blocks (32 x uint16_t) in the hot path, followed by smaller
> > 32/16/8/4/2-byte chunks.
>
> Good idea processing in 64-byte blocks!
>
> I wonder if there would be further gain by 64-byte aligning the 64-byte chunks, so the compiler can use vector instructions for summing the 32 2-byte words of each 64-byte chunk.
> This would require a 3-step algorithm:
> 1. Process the first 0..63 bytes preceding the first 64-byte aligned address. (These bytes are unaligned; nothing new here.)
> 2. Process 64-byte chunks, if any. These are now 64-byte aligned, and you should ensure that the compiler knows it.
> 3. Process the last 32/16/8/4/2/1-byte chunks. These are now aligned, which eliminates the need for unaligned_uint16_t in this step. Specifically, the 32-byte chunk will be 64-byte aligned, allowing the compiler to use vector instructions. The 16-byte chunk will be 32-byte aligned. Etc.
>
> <random idea>
> Step 1 may be performed in reverse order of step 3, i.e. process in chunks of 1/2/4/8/16/32 bytes (using the lowest bits of the address as condition) - which will cause the alignment to increase accordingly.
> </random idea>
>
> <feature creep>
> Checking the alignment at runtime has a non-zero cost, so a an alternative (simpler) code path might be beneficial for small lengths (when the alignment is unknown at runtime).
> </feature creep>
>

Good idea! I implemented your suggestion but I didn't observe a
measurable difference in cksum_perf_autotest. I suggest we proceed
with the approach in this patch as an incremental step and I can post
a followup with your suggestion above to review/discuss. Note the
checksum computation requires processing in 16 bit blocks for
correctness which requires special case handling for odd
length/buffer-address alignment so complexity/code is higher.

> >
> > Uses uint64_t accumulator to reduce carry propagation overhead
>
> You return (uint32_t)sum64 at the end, so why replace the existing 32-bit "sum" with a 64-bit "sum64" accumulator?

Good catch. It gives more headroom to avoid overflow but not necessary
and I will revert.

>
> > and
> > leverages unaligned_uint16_t for safe unaligned access on all
> > platforms.
> >
> > Performance results from cksum_perf_autotest (TSC cycles/byte):
> >   Block size    Before    After    Improvement
> >          100  0.40-0.64  0.13-0.14    ~3-4x
> >         1500  0.49-0.51  0.10-0.11    ~4-5x
> >         9000  0.48-0.51  0.11-0.12    ~4x
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Scott Mitchell <scott.k.mitch1@gmail.com>
>