On 7/8/2022 1:56 PM, Mattias Rönnblom wrote:
__rte_raw_cksum() (used by rte_raw_cksum() among others) accessed its
data through an uint16_t pointer, which allowed the compiler to assume
the data was 16-bit aligned. This in turn would, with certain
architectures and compiler flag combinations, result in code with SIMD
load or store instructions with restrictions on data alignment.
This patch keeps the old algorithm, but data is read using memcpy()
instead of direct pointer access, forcing the compiler to always
generate code that handles unaligned input. The __may_alias__ GCC
attribute is no longer needed.
The data on which the Internet checksum functions operates are almost
always 16-bit aligned, but there are exceptions. In particular, the
PDCP protocol header may (literally) have an odd size.
Performance impact seems to range from none to a very slight
regression.
Bugzilla ID: 1035
Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
---
v2:
* Simplified the odd-length conditional (Morten Brørup).
Reviewed-by: Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com>
Signed-off-by: Mattias Rönnblom <mattias.ronnb...@ericsson.com>
---
lib/net/rte_ip.h | 17 ++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/net/rte_ip.h b/lib/net/rte_ip.h
index b502481670..a0334d931e 100644
--- a/lib/net/rte_ip.h
+++ b/lib/net/rte_ip.h
@@ -160,18 +160,21 @@ rte_ipv4_hdr_len(const struct rte_ipv4_hdr *ipv4_hdr)
static inline uint32_t
__rte_raw_cksum(const void *buf, size_t len, uint32_t sum)
{
- /* extend strict-aliasing rules */
- typedef uint16_t __attribute__((__may_alias__)) u16_p;
- const u16_p *u16_buf = (const u16_p *)buf;
- const u16_p *end = u16_buf + len / sizeof(*u16_buf);
+ const void *end;
- for (; u16_buf != end; ++u16_buf)
- sum += *u16_buf;
+ for (end = RTE_PTR_ADD(buf, (len/sizeof(uint16_t)) * sizeof(uint16_t));
+ buf != end; buf = RTE_PTR_ADD(buf, sizeof(uint16_t))) {
+ uint16_t v;
+
+ memcpy(&v, buf, sizeof(uint16_t));
+ sum += v;
+ }
/* if length is odd, keeping it byte order independent */
if (unlikely(len % 2)) {
uint16_t left = 0;
- *(unsigned char *)&left = *(const unsigned char *)end;
+
+ memcpy(&left, end, 1);
sum += left;
}
Hi Mattias,
I got following result [1] with patches on [2].
Can you shed light to some questions I have,
1) For 1500 why 'Unaligned' access gives better performance than
'Aligned' access?
2) Why 21/101 bytes almost doubles 20/100 bytes perf?
3) Why 1501 bytes perf better than 1500 bytes perf?
Btw, I don't see any noticeable performance difference between with and
without patch.
[1]
RTE>>cksum_perf_autotest
### rte_raw_cksum() performance ###
Alignment Block size TSC cycles/block TSC cycles/byte
Aligned 20 25.1 1.25
Unaligned 20 25.1 1.25
Aligned 21 51.5 2.45
Unaligned 21 51.5 2.45
Aligned 100 28.2 0.28
Unaligned 100 28.2 0.28
Aligned 101 54.5 0.54
Unaligned 101 54.5 0.54
Aligned 1500 188.9 0.13
Unaligned 1500 138.7 0.09
Aligned 1501 114.1 0.08
Unaligned 1501 110.1 0.07
Test OK
RTE>>
[2]
AMD EPYC 7543P
