* Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@redhat.com> wrote:
> I'm still looking at the other one (sha512-avx2), but so far I haven't
> found a way to speed it back up.
Here's a couple of very quick observations with possible optimizations:
AFAICS the main effect of the RBP fixes is the introduction of a memory load
into
the critical path, into the body unrolled loop:
+ mov frame_TBL(%rsp), TBL
vpaddq (TBL), Y_0, XFER
vmovdqa XFER, frame_XFER(%rsp)
FOUR_ROUNDS_AND_SCHED
Both 'TLB' and 'T1' are mapped to R12, which is why TBL has to be spilled to be
reloaded from the stack.
1)
Note how R12 is used immediately, right in the next instruction:
vpaddq (TBL), Y_0, XFER
I.e. the RBP fixes lengthen the program order data dependencies - that's a new
constraint and a few extra cycles per loop iteration if the workload is
address-generator bandwidth limited on that.
A simple way to ease that constraint would be to move the 'TLB' load up into
the
loop, body, to the point where 'T1' is used for the last time - which is:
mov a, T1 # T1 = a # MAJB
and c, T1 # T1 = a&c # MAJB
add y0, y2 # y2 = S1 + CH # --
or T1, y3 # y3 = MAJ = (a|c)&b)|(a&c) # MAJ
+ mov frame_TBL(%rsp), TBL
add y1, h # h = k + w + h + S0 # --
add y2, d # d = k + w + h + d + S1 + CH = d + t1 # --
add y2, h # h = k + w + h + S0 + S1 + CH = t1 + S0# --
add y3, h # h = t1 + S0 + MAJ # --
Note how this moves up the 'TLB' reload by 4 instructions.
2)
If this does not get back performance, then maybe another reason is that it's
cache access latency limited, in which case a more involved optimization would
be
to look at the register patterns and usages:
first-use last-use use-length
a: #10 #29 20
b: #24 #24 1
c: #14 #30 17
d: #23 #34 12
e: #11 #20 10
f: #15 #15 1
g: #18 #27 10
h: #13 #36 24
y0: #11 #31 21
y1: #12 #33 22
y2: #15 #35 21
y3: #10 #36 27
T1: #16 #32 17
The 'first-use' colums shows the number of the instruction within the loop body
that the register gets used - with '#1' denoting the first instruction ad #36
the
last instruction, the 'last-use' column is showing the last instruction, and
the
'use-length' colum shows the 'window' in which a register is used.
What we want are the registers that are used the most tightly, i.e. these two:
b: #24 #24 1
f: #15 #15 1
Of these two 'f' is the best one, because it has an earlier use and longer
cooldown.
If alias 'TBL' with 'f' then we could reload 'TLB' for the next iteration very
early on:
mov f, y2 # y2 = f # CH
+ mov frame_TBL(%rsp), TBL
rorx $34, a, T1 # T1 = a >> 34 # S0B
And there will be 21 instructions that don't depend on TLB after this, plenty
of
time for the load to be generated and propagated.
NOTE: my pseudo-patch is naive, due to the complication caused by the
RotateState
macro name rotation. It's still fundamentally possible I believe, it's just
that
'TBL' has to be rotated too, together with the other varibles.
3)
If even this does not help, because the workload is ucode-cache limited, and
the
extra reloads pushed the critical path just beyond some cache limit, then
another
experiment to try would be to roll _back_ the loop some more: instead of 4x
FOUR_ROUNDS_AND_SCHED unrolled loops, try just having 2.
The CPU should still be smart enough with 2x interleaving of the loop body, and
the extra branches should be relatively small and we could get back some
performance.
In theory ...
4)
If the workload is fundamentally cache-port bandwidth limited, then the extra
loads from memory to reload 'TLB' take away valuable bandwidth. There's no easy
fix for that, but to find an unused register.
Here's the (initial, pre-rotation) integer register mappings:
a: RAX
b: RBX
c: RCX
d: R8
e: RDX
f: R9
g: R10
h: R11
y0: R13
y1: R14
y2: R15
y3: RSI
T1: R12
TLB: R12 # aliased to T1
Look what's missing: I don't see RDI being used in the loop.
RDI is allocated to 'CTX', but that's only used in higher level glue code, it
does
not appear to be used in the inner loops (explicitly at least).
So if this observation of mine is true we could go back to the old code for the
hotpath, but use RDI for TBL and not reload it in the hotpath.
Thanks,
Ingo
