On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 18:14:16 GMT, Scott Gibbons <[email protected]> wrote:
>> src/hotspot/cpu/x86/stubGenerator_x86_64.cpp line 2661:
>>
>>> 2659: __ vpbroadcastq(xmm4, Address(r13, 0), Assembler::AVX_256bit);
>>> 2660: __ vmovdqu(xmm11, Address(r13, 0x28));
>>> 2661: __ vpbroadcastb(xmm10, Address(r13, 0), Assembler::AVX_256bit);
>>
>> Sorry in advance since I'm probably reading this wrong: the data that `r13`
>> is pointing to appears to be a repeated byte pattern (`0x2f2f2f...`), does
>> this mean this `vpbroadcastb` and the `vpbroadcastq` above end up filling up
>> their respective registers with the exact same bits? If so, and since
>> neither of them is mutated in the code below, then perhaps this can be
>> simplified a bit.
>
> You're reading it correctly - this is redundant and could be handled
> differently, as the same value is being loaded into ymm4 and ymm10. I don't
> think there will be any significant performance gain either way. This was
> done in this manner to allow easier transition to URL acceleration when it is
> implemented, as URLs require handling '-' and '_' instead of '+' and '/' ('/'
> = 0x2f).
I was mainly curious if there was some obscure detail or difference that eluded
me. It wouldn't be the first time!
As it's outside of the loop you're probably right about it not being very
important to overall performance, though we should be mindful of setup
overheads of transitioning into AVX code. Especially since inputs likely are
skewed towards the smallest applicable lengths. I think it would be prudent to
run and check the microbenchmark with values near the AVX2 threshold, such as
`maxNumBytes = 48`.
If you choose to keep the code as-is would you mind documenting the rationale
behind the redundancy? (Is there WIP on more generalized URL acceleration that
could be referenced?)
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/12126
