On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 18:56:43 -0800 Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:07:39PM +0000, David Laight wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:16:08 -0800 > > Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 02:26:53PM +0000, David Laight wrote: > > > > On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 13:32:16 -0800 > > > > Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > For handling the 0 <= len < sizeof(unsigned long) bytes left at the end, > > > > > do a 4-2-1 step-down instead of a byte-at-a-time loop. This allows > > > > > taking advantage of wider CRC instructions. Note that crc32c-3way.S > > > > > already uses this same optimization too. > > > > > > > > An alternative is to add extra zero bytes at the start of the buffer. > > > > They don't affect the crc and just need the first 8 bytes shifted left. > > > > > > > > I think any non-zero 'crc-in' just needs to be xor'ed over the first > > > > 4 actual data bytes. > > > > (It's over 40 years since I did the maths of CRC.) > > ... > > > > David > > > > > > Sure, but that only works when len >= sizeof(unsigned long). Also, the initial > > > CRC sometimes has to be divided between two unsigned longs. > > > > Yes, I was thinking that might make it a bit more tricky. > > I need to find some spare time :-) > > > > I wasn't taught anything about using non-carry multiplies either. > > And I can't remember the relevant 'number field' stuff either. > > But (with no-carry maths) I think you have: > > crc(n + 1) = (crc(n) + data(n)) * poly > > If data(n+1) and data(n+2) are zero (handled elsewhere) you have: > > crc(n + 3) = (((crc(n) + data(n)) * poly) * poly) * poly > > I think that because it is a field this is the same as > > crc(n + 3) = (crc(n) + data(n)) * (poly * poly * poly) > > which is just a different crc polynomial. > > If true your '3-way' cpu doesn't have to use big blocks. > > Well, to extend by some constant number of bits 'n', you can carryless-multiply > by the polynomial x^n, pre-reduced by the CRC's generator polynomial. That's > basically how all the CRC implementations using carryless multiplication work. > Take a look at the x86 and riscv optimized code, for example -- especially my > new versions in the crc-next tree at > https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ebiggers/linux.git/log/?h=crc-next. > > But x86 does not have a scalar carryless multiplication instruction, only vector > (PCLMULQDQ). It does have a scalar CRC instruction, for crc32c *specifically*, > and that is what the code we're discussing is taking advantage of. Given that > there is overhead associated with using kernel-mode FPU (i.e. vector), it makes > sense to do that, at least on short messages. > > On longer messages a PCLMULQDQ-only implementation would work well, but so does > interleaving the crc32c scalar instruction on multiple chunks, which is what is > currently wired up in the kernel via crc32c-3way.S. And yes, the chunks for > that do not *have* to be long, but you still need to use pclmulqdq instructions > to combine them You should be able to use lookup tables to jump over the other chunks (so processing a block of zero bytes). Possibly 8 lookup tables of 16 entries each for each nibble (512 bytes). Not nice for the d-cache though. > (unless you do a really slow bit-at-a-time carryless > multiplication), and you have to enter a kernel-mode FPU section to do that. That pseudo-code is probably completely wrong. I suspect that since it is 'just' doing 'data % poly' it relies on the fact that 327 % 7 == 3 * (100 % 7) + 27 and reduces the length by one digit. (Where a 'digit' could be 64 bits) I need to look up pclmulqdq. Trying to do anything with the simd instructions makes my head hurt. David
