hash/crc32: optimize arm64 crc32 implementation #20370
Labels
Milestone
Comments
vielmetti
referenced
this issue
May 15, 2017
ARMv8 defines crc32 instruction. Comparing to the original crc32 calculation, this patch makes use of crc32 instructions to do crc32 calculation instead of the multiple lookup table algorithms. ARMv8 provides IEEE and Castagnoli polynomials for crc32 calculation so that the perfomance of these two types of crc32 get significant improved. name old time/op new time/op delta CRC32/poly=IEEE/size=15/align=0-32 117ns ± 0% 38ns ± 0% -67.44% CRC32/poly=IEEE/size=15/align=1-32 117ns ± 0% 38ns ± 0% -67.52% CRC32/poly=IEEE/size=40/align=0-32 129ns ± 0% 41ns ± 0% -68.37% CRC32/poly=IEEE/size=40/align=1-32 129ns ± 0% 41ns ± 0% -68.29% CRC32/poly=IEEE/size=512/align=0-32 828ns ± 0% 246ns ± 0% -70.29% CRC32/poly=IEEE/size=512/align=1-32 828ns ± 0% 132ns ± 0% -84.06% CRC32/poly=IEEE/size=1kB/align=0-32 1.58µs ± 0% 0.46µs ± 0% -70.98% CRC32/poly=IEEE/size=1kB/align=1-32 1.58µs ± 0% 0.46µs ± 0% -70.92% CRC32/poly=IEEE/size=4kB/align=0-32 6.06µs ± 0% 1.74µs ± 0% -71.27% CRC32/poly=IEEE/size=4kB/align=1-32 6.10µs ± 0% 1.74µs ± 0% -71.44% CRC32/poly=IEEE/size=32kB/align=0-32 48.3µs ± 0% 13.7µs ± 0% -71.61% CRC32/poly=IEEE/size=32kB/align=1-32 48.3µs ± 0% 13.7µs ± 0% -71.60% CRC32/poly=Castagnoli/size=15/align=0-32 116ns ± 0% 38ns ± 0% -67.07% CRC32/poly=Castagnoli/size=15/align=1-32 116ns ± 0% 38ns ± 0% -66.90% CRC32/poly=Castagnoli/size=40/align=0-32 127ns ± 0% 40ns ± 0% -68.11% CRC32/poly=Castagnoli/size=40/align=1-32 127ns ± 0% 40ns ± 0% -68.11% CRC32/poly=Castagnoli/size=512/align=0-32 828ns ± 0% 132ns ± 0% -84.06% CRC32/poly=Castagnoli/size=512/align=1-32 827ns ± 0% 132ns ± 0% -84.04% CRC32/poly=Castagnoli/size=1kB/align=0-32 1.59µs ± 0% 0.22µs ± 0% -85.89% CRC32/poly=Castagnoli/size=1kB/align=1-32 1.58µs ± 0% 0.22µs ± 0% -85.79% CRC32/poly=Castagnoli/size=4kB/align=0-32 6.14µs ± 0% 0.77µs ± 0% -87.40% CRC32/poly=Castagnoli/size=4kB/align=1-32 6.06µs ± 0% 0.77µs ± 0% -87.25% CRC32/poly=Castagnoli/size=32kB/align=0-32 48.3µs ± 0% 5.9µs ± 0% -87.71% CRC32/poly=Castagnoli/size=32kB/align=1-32 48.4µs ± 0% 6.0µs ± 0% -87.69% CRC32/poly=Koopman/size=15/align=0-32 104ns ± 0% 104ns ± 0% +0.00% CRC32/poly=Koopman/size=15/align=1-32 104ns ± 0% 104ns ± 0% +0.00% CRC32/poly=Koopman/size=40/align=0-32 235ns ± 0% 235ns ± 0% +0.00% CRC32/poly=Koopman/size=40/align=1-32 235ns ± 0% 235ns ± 0% +0.00% CRC32/poly=Koopman/size=512/align=0-32 2.71µs ± 0% 2.71µs ± 0% -0.07% CRC32/poly=Koopman/size=512/align=1-32 2.71µs ± 0% 2.71µs ± 0% -0.04% CRC32/poly=Koopman/size=1kB/align=0-32 5.40µs ± 0% 5.39µs ± 0% -0.06% CRC32/poly=Koopman/size=1kB/align=1-32 5.40µs ± 0% 5.40µs ± 0% +0.02% CRC32/poly=Koopman/size=4kB/align=0-32 21.5µs ± 0% 21.5µs ± 0% -0.16% CRC32/poly=Koopman/size=4kB/align=1-32 21.5µs ± 0% 21.5µs ± 0% -0.05% CRC32/poly=Koopman/size=32kB/align=0-32 172µs ± 0% 172µs ± 0% -0.07% CRC32/poly=Koopman/size=32kB/align=1-32 172µs ± 0% 172µs ± 0% -0.01% name old speed new speed delta CRC32/poly=IEEE/size=15/align=0-32 128MB/s ± 0% 394MB/s ± 0% +207.95% CRC32/poly=IEEE/size=15/align=1-32 128MB/s ± 0% 394MB/s ± 0% +208.09% CRC32/poly=IEEE/size=40/align=0-32 310MB/s ± 0% 979MB/s ± 0% +216.07% CRC32/poly=IEEE/size=40/align=1-32 310MB/s ± 0% 979MB/s ± 0% +216.16% CRC32/poly=IEEE/size=512/align=0-32 618MB/s ± 0% 2074MB/s ± 0% +235.72% CRC32/poly=IEEE/size=512/align=1-32 618MB/s ± 0% 3852MB/s ± 0% +523.55% CRC32/poly=IEEE/size=1kB/align=0-32 646MB/s ± 0% 2225MB/s ± 0% +244.57% CRC32/poly=IEEE/size=1kB/align=1-32 647MB/s ± 0% 2225MB/s ± 0% +243.87% CRC32/poly=IEEE/size=4kB/align=0-32 676MB/s ± 0% 2352MB/s ± 0% +248.02% CRC32/poly=IEEE/size=4kB/align=1-32 672MB/s ± 0% 2352MB/s ± 0% +250.15% CRC32/poly=IEEE/size=32kB/align=0-32 678MB/s ± 0% 2387MB/s ± 0% +252.17% CRC32/poly=IEEE/size=32kB/align=1-32 678MB/s ± 0% 2388MB/s ± 0% +252.11% CRC32/poly=Castagnoli/size=15/align=0-32 129MB/s ± 0% 393MB/s ± 0% +205.51% CRC32/poly=Castagnoli/size=15/align=1-32 129MB/s ± 0% 390MB/s ± 0% +203.41% CRC32/poly=Castagnoli/size=40/align=0-32 314MB/s ± 0% 988MB/s ± 0% +215.04% CRC32/poly=Castagnoli/size=40/align=1-32 314MB/s ± 0% 987MB/s ± 0% +214.68% CRC32/poly=Castagnoli/size=512/align=0-32 618MB/s ± 0% 3860MB/s ± 0% +524.32% CRC32/poly=Castagnoli/size=512/align=1-32 619MB/s ± 0% 3859MB/s ± 0% +523.66% CRC32/poly=Castagnoli/size=1kB/align=0-32 645MB/s ± 0% 4568MB/s ± 0% +608.56% CRC32/poly=Castagnoli/size=1kB/align=1-32 650MB/s ± 0% 4567MB/s ± 0% +602.94% CRC32/poly=Castagnoli/size=4kB/align=0-32 667MB/s ± 0% 5297MB/s ± 0% +693.81% CRC32/poly=Castagnoli/size=4kB/align=1-32 676MB/s ± 0% 5297MB/s ± 0% +684.00% CRC32/poly=Castagnoli/size=32kB/align=0-32 678MB/s ± 0% 5519MB/s ± 0% +713.83% CRC32/poly=Castagnoli/size=32kB/align=1-32 677MB/s ± 0% 5497MB/s ± 0% +712.04% CRC32/poly=Koopman/size=15/align=0-32 143MB/s ± 0% 144MB/s ± 0% +0.27% CRC32/poly=Koopman/size=15/align=1-32 143MB/s ± 0% 144MB/s ± 0% +0.33% CRC32/poly=Koopman/size=40/align=0-32 169MB/s ± 0% 170MB/s ± 0% +0.12% CRC32/poly=Koopman/size=40/align=1-32 170MB/s ± 0% 170MB/s ± 0% +0.08% CRC32/poly=Koopman/size=512/align=0-32 189MB/s ± 0% 189MB/s ± 0% +0.07% CRC32/poly=Koopman/size=512/align=1-32 189MB/s ± 0% 189MB/s ± 0% +0.04% CRC32/poly=Koopman/size=1kB/align=0-32 190MB/s ± 0% 190MB/s ± 0% +0.05% CRC32/poly=Koopman/size=1kB/align=1-32 190MB/s ± 0% 190MB/s ± 0% -0.01% CRC32/poly=Koopman/size=4kB/align=0-32 190MB/s ± 0% 190MB/s ± 0% +0.15% CRC32/poly=Koopman/size=4kB/align=1-32 190MB/s ± 0% 191MB/s ± 0% +0.05% CRC32/poly=Koopman/size=32kB/align=0-32 191MB/s ± 0% 191MB/s ± 0% +0.06% CRC32/poly=Koopman/size=32kB/align=1-32 191MB/s ± 0% 191MB/s ± 0% +0.02% Also fix a bug of arm64 assembler The optimization is mainly contributed by Fangming.Fang <fangming.fang@arm.com> Change-Id: I900678c2e445d7e8ad9e2a9ab3305d649230905f Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/40074 Reviewed-by: Cherry Zhang <cherryyz@google.com> Run-TryBot: Cherry Zhang <cherryyz@google.com> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
vielmetti
changed the title
|
That commit was merged and it'll be in go1.9. Can we close this issue then? |
|
Yes, OK to close (you might want to label it such that it goes into the 1.9 release notes). |
|
I believe we have a script that automatically recognizes performance improvements from commit messages with "-XX%" in them so we should be fine! |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Please answer these questions before submitting your issue. Thanks!
What version of Go are you using (
go version)?go version go1.8.1 linux/arm64
What operating system and processor architecture are you using (
go env)?GOARCH="arm64"
GOBIN=""
GOEXE=""
GOHOSTARCH="arm64"
GOHOSTOS="linux"
GOOS="linux"
GOPATH="/root/go"
GORACE=""
GOROOT="/usr/lib/go-1.8"
GOTOOLDIR="/usr/lib/go-1.8/pkg/tool/linux_arm64"
GCCGO="gccgo"
CC="gcc"
GOGCCFLAGS="-fPIC -pthread -fmessage-length=0 -fdebug-prefix-map=/tmp/go-build806539295=/tmp/go-build -gno-record-gcc-switches"
CXX="g++"
CGO_ENABLED="1"
PKG_CONFIG="pkg-config"
CGO_CFLAGS="-g -O2"
CGO_CPPFLAGS=""
CGO_CXXFLAGS="-g -O2"
CGO_FFLAGS="-g -O2"
CGO_LDFLAGS="-g -O2"
What did you do?
See cockroachdb/cockroach#15868, "TestConcurrentBatch takes 20s+ on arm64". This code which does a lot of CRC32 functions on arm64 is not yet accelerated.
What did you expect to see?
Performance fast enough to pass CockroachDB's test.
What did you see instead?
Slow performance, 8x the time of a laptop.
It looks like this commit
ab636b8
will substantially address the performance issue on arm64.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: