Hi, On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:40 AM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 at 20:22, Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 8:36 AM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 at 17:28, Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:32 AM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > +#define REPS 100 > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this sufficient? I'm not sure what the lower bound on what's > > > > > > expected of ktime. If I'm doing the math right, on your system > > > > > > running 100 loops took 38802 ns in one case, since: > > > > > > > > > > > > (4096 * 1000 * 100) / 10556 = 38802 > > > > > > > > > > > > If you happen to have your timer backed by a 32 kHz clock, one tick of > > > > > > ktime could be as much as 31250 ns, right? Maybe on systems backed > > > > > > with a 32kHz clock they'll take longer, but it still seems moderately > > > > > > iffy? I dunno, maybe I'm just being paranoid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, that is a good point - I didn't really consider that ktime could > > > > > be that coarse. > > > > > > > > > > OTOH, we don't really need the full 5 digits of precision either, as > > > > > long as we don't misidentify the fastest algorithm. > > > > > > > > > > So I think it should be sufficient to bump this to 800. If my > > > > > calculations are correct, this would limit any potential > > > > > misidentification of algorithms performing below 10 GB/s to ones that > > > > > only deviate in performance up to 10%. > > > > > > > > > > 800 * 1000 * 4096 / (10 * 31250) = 10485 > > > > > 800 * 1000 * 4096 / (11 * 31250) = 9532 > > > > > > > > > > (10485/9532) / 10485 = 10% > > > > > > > > Seems OK to me. Seems unlikely that super fast machine are going to > > > > have a 32 kHz backed k_time and the worst case is that we'll pick a > > > > slightly sub-optimal xor, I guess. I assume your goal is to keep > > > > things fitting in a 32-bit unsigned integer? Looks like if your use > > > > 1000 it also fits... > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but the larger we make this number, the more time the test will > > > take on such slow machines. Doing 1000 iterations of 4k on a low-end > > > machine that only manages 500 MB/s (?) takes a couple of milliseconds, > > > which is more than it does today when HZ=1000 I think. > > > > > > Not that 800 vs 1000 makes a great deal of difference in that regard, > > > just illustrating that there is an upper bound as well. > > > > Would it make sense to use some type of hybrid approach? I know > > getting ktime itself has some overhead so you don't want to do it in a > > tight loop, but maybe calling it every once in a while would be > > acceptable and if it's been more than 500 us then stop early? > > > > To be honest, I don't think we don't need complexity like this - if > boot time is critical on such a slow system, you probable won't have > XOR built in, assuming it even makes sense to do software XOR on such > a system. > > It is indeed preferable to have a numerator that fits in a U32, and so > 1000 would be equally suitable in that regard, but I think I will > stick with 800 if you don't mind. OK, fair enough. -Doug
