diff options
author | Andy Polyakov <appro@openssl.org> | 2003-01-19 21:29:59 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | Andy Polyakov <appro@openssl.org> | 2003-01-19 21:29:59 +0000 |
commit | 722d17cbac898bf02ee8f75dabba87ab1373500d (patch) | |
tree | 38a88bd78b9db783f1441db952a40335bfe47c27 /crypto/bn/asm/ia64.S | |
parent | 59b846c5156772a5ee556212dfd63e1988aed532 (diff) |
This is an *initial* tune-up. This update puts Itanium2 back on par with
Itanium. I mean if overall performance improvement over C version was X
for Itanium, it's X even for Itanium2.
Diffstat (limited to 'crypto/bn/asm/ia64.S')
-rw-r--r-- | crypto/bn/asm/ia64.S | 123 |
1 files changed, 76 insertions, 47 deletions
diff --git a/crypto/bn/asm/ia64.S b/crypto/bn/asm/ia64.S index 04e0cc5409..7dfda85566 100644 --- a/crypto/bn/asm/ia64.S +++ b/crypto/bn/asm/ia64.S @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ .explicit .text -.ident "ia64.S, Version 1.2" +.ident "ia64.S, Version 2.0" .ident "IA-64 ISA artwork by Andy Polyakov <appro@fy.chalmers.se>" // @@ -13,6 +13,35 @@ // disclaimed. // ==================================================================== // +// Version 2.x is Itanium2 re-tune. Few words about how Itanum2 is +// different from Itanium to this module viewpoint. Most notably, is it +// "wider" than Itanium? Can you experience loop scalability as +// discussed in commentary sections? Not really:-( Itanium2 has 6 +// integer ALU ports, i.e. it's 2 ports wider, but it's not enough to +// spin twice as fast, as I need 8 IALU ports. Amount of floating point +// ports is the same, i.e. 2, while I need 4. In other words, to this +// module Itanium2 remains effectively as "wide" as Itanium. Yet it's +// essentially different in respect to this module, and a re-tune was +// required. Well, because some intruction latencies has changed. Most +// noticeably those intensively used: +// +// Itanium Itanium2 +// ldf8 9 6 L2 hit +// ld8 2 1 L1 hit +// getf 2 5 +// xma[->getf] 7[+1] 4[+0] +// add[->st8] 1[+1] 1[+0] +// +// What does it mean? You might ratiocinate that the original code +// should run just faster... Because sum of latencies is smaller... +// Wrong! Note that getf latency increased. This means that if a loop is +// scheduled for lower latency (and they are), then it will suffer from +// stall condition and the code will therefore turn anti-scalable, e.g. +// original bn_mul_words spun at 5*n or 2.5 times slower than expected +// on Itanium2! What to do? Reschedule loops for Itanium2? But then +// Itanium would exhibit anti-scalability. So I've chosen to reschedule +// for worst latency for every instruction aiming for best *all-round* +// performance. // Q. How much faster does it get? // A. Here is the output from 'openssl speed rsa dsa' for vanilla @@ -283,7 +312,7 @@ bn_mul_words: #ifdef XMA_TEMPTATION { .mfi; alloc r2=ar.pfs,4,0,0,0 };; #else -{ .mfi; alloc r2=ar.pfs,4,4,0,8 };; +{ .mfi; alloc r2=ar.pfs,4,12,0,16 };; #endif { .mib; mov r8=r0 // return value cmp4.le p6,p0=r34,r0 @@ -296,8 +325,8 @@ bn_mul_words: .body { .mib; setf.sig f8=r35 // w - mov pr.rot=0x400001<<16 - // ------^----- serves as (p48) at first (p26) + mov pr.rot=0x800001<<16 + // ------^----- serves as (p50) at first (p27) brp.loop.imp .L_bn_mul_words_ctop,.L_bn_mul_words_cend-16 } @@ -312,14 +341,14 @@ bn_mul_words: mov r15=r33 // ap #endif mov ar.lc=r10 } -{ .mii; mov r39=0 // serves as r33 at first (p26) - mov ar.ec=12 };; +{ .mii; mov r40=0 // serves as r35 at first (p27) + mov ar.ec=13 };; -// This loop spins in 2*(n+11) ticks. It's scheduled for data in L2 -// cache (i.e. 9 ticks away) as floating point load/store instructions +// This loop spins in 2*(n+12) ticks. It's scheduled for data in Itanium +// L2 cache (i.e. 9 ticks away) as floating point load/store instructions // bypass L1 cache and L2 latency is actually best-case scenario for -// ldf8. The loop is not scalable and shall run in 2*(n+11) even on -// "wider" IA-64 implementations. It's a trade-off here. n+22 loop +// ldf8. The loop is not scalable and shall run in 2*(n+12) even on +// "wider" IA-64 implementations. It's a trade-off here. n+24 loop // would give us ~5% in *overall* performance improvement on "wider" // IA-64, but would hurt Itanium for about same because of longer // epilogue. As it's a matter of few percents in either case I've @@ -327,25 +356,25 @@ bn_mul_words: // this very instruction sequence in bn_mul_add_words loop which in // turn is scalable). .L_bn_mul_words_ctop: -{ .mfi; (p25) getf.sig r36=f49 // low - (p21) xmpy.lu f45=f37,f8 - (p27) cmp.ltu p52,p48=r39,r38 } +{ .mfi; (p25) getf.sig r36=f52 // low + (p21) xmpy.lu f48=f37,f8 + (p28) cmp.ltu p54,p50=r41,r39 } { .mfi; (p16) ldf8 f32=[r15],8 - (p21) xmpy.hu f38=f37,f8 + (p21) xmpy.hu f40=f37,f8 (p0) nop.i 0x0 };; -{ .mii; (p26) getf.sig r32=f43 // high - .pred.rel "mutex",p48,p52 - (p48) add r38=r37,r33 // (p26) - (p52) add r38=r37,r33,1 } // (p26) -{ .mfb; (p27) st8 [r14]=r39,8 +{ .mii; (p25) getf.sig r32=f44 // high + .pred.rel "mutex",p50,p54 + (p50) add r40=r38,r35 // (p27) + (p54) add r40=r38,r35,1 } // (p27) +{ .mfb; (p28) st8 [r14]=r41,8 (p0) nop.f 0x0 br.ctop.sptk .L_bn_mul_words_ctop };; .L_bn_mul_words_cend: { .mii; nop.m 0x0 -.pred.rel "mutex",p49,p53 -(p49) add r8=r34,r0 -(p53) add r8=r34,r0,1 } +.pred.rel "mutex",p51,p55 +(p51) add r8=r36,r0 +(p55) add r8=r36,r0,1 } { .mfb; nop.m 0x0 nop.f 0x0 nop.b 0x0 } @@ -412,8 +441,8 @@ bn_mul_add_words: .body { .mib; setf.sig f8=r35 // w - mov pr.rot=0x400001<<16 - // ------^----- serves as (p48) at first (p26) + mov pr.rot=0x800001<<16 + // ------^----- serves as (p50) at first (p27) brp.loop.imp .L_bn_mul_add_words_ctop,.L_bn_mul_add_words_cend-16 } { .mii; @@ -425,55 +454,55 @@ bn_mul_add_words: mov r15=r33 // ap #endif mov ar.lc=r10 } -{ .mii; mov r39=0 // serves as r33 at first (p26) +{ .mii; mov r40=0 // serves as r35 at first (p27) #if defined(_HPUX_SOURCE) && defined(_ILP32) addp4 r18=0,r32 // rp copy #else mov r18=r32 // rp copy #endif - mov ar.ec=14 };; + mov ar.ec=15 };; -// This loop spins in 3*(n+13) ticks on Itanium and should spin in -// 2*(n+13) on "wider" IA-64 implementations (to be verified with new +// This loop spins in 3*(n+14) ticks on Itanium and should spin in +// 2*(n+14) on "wider" IA-64 implementations (to be verified with new // µ-architecture manuals as they become available). As usual it's // possible to compress the epilogue, down to 10 in this case, at the // cost of scalability. Compressed (and therefore non-scalable) loop -// running at 3*(n+10) would buy you ~10% on Itanium but take ~35% +// running at 3*(n+11) would buy you ~10% on Itanium but take ~35% // from "wider" IA-64 so let it be scalable! Special attention was // paid for having the loop body split at 64-byte boundary. ld8 is // scheduled for L1 cache as the data is more than likely there. // Indeed, bn_mul_words has put it there a moment ago:-) .L_bn_mul_add_words_ctop: -{ .mfi; (p25) getf.sig r36=f49 // low - (p21) xmpy.lu f45=f37,f8 - (p27) cmp.ltu p52,p48=r39,r38 } +{ .mfi; (p25) getf.sig r36=f52 // low + (p21) xmpy.lu f48=f37,f8 + (p28) cmp.ltu p54,p50=r41,r39 } { .mfi; (p16) ldf8 f32=[r15],8 - (p21) xmpy.hu f38=f37,f8 - (p27) add r43=r43,r39 };; -{ .mii; (p26) getf.sig r32=f43 // high - .pred.rel "mutex",p48,p52 - (p48) add r38=r37,r33 // (p26) - (p52) add r38=r37,r33,1 } // (p26) -{ .mfb; (p27) cmp.ltu.unc p56,p0=r43,r39 + (p21) xmpy.hu f40=f37,f8 + (p28) add r45=r45,r41 };; +{ .mii; (p25) getf.sig r32=f44 // high + .pred.rel "mutex",p50,p54 + (p50) add r40=r38,r35 // (p27) + (p54) add r40=r38,r35,1 } // (p27) +{ .mfb; (p28) cmp.ltu.unc p60,p0=r45,r41 (p0) nop.f 0x0 (p0) nop.b 0x0 } -{ .mii; (p26) ld8 r42=[r18],8 - (p58) cmp.eq.or p57,p0=-1,r44 - (p58) add r44=1,r44 } -{ .mfb; (p29) st8 [r14]=r45,8 +{ .mii; (p27) ld8 r44=[r18],8 + (p62) cmp.eq.or p61,p0=-1,r46 + (p62) add r46=1,r46 } +{ .mfb; (p30) st8 [r14]=r47,8 (p0) nop.f 0x0 br.ctop.sptk .L_bn_mul_add_words_ctop};; .L_bn_mul_add_words_cend: { .mii; nop.m 0x0 -.pred.rel "mutex",p51,p55 -(p51) add r8=r36,r0 -(p55) add r8=r36,r0,1 } +.pred.rel "mutex",p53,p57 +(p53) add r8=r38,r0 +(p57) add r8=r38,r0,1 } { .mfb; nop.m 0x0 nop.f 0x0 nop.b 0x0 };; { .mii; -(p59) add r8=1,r8 +(p63) add r8=1,r8 mov pr=r9,0x1ffff mov ar.lc=r3 } { .mfb; rum 1<<5 // clear um.mfh |