Re: [PATCH] Add loongarch native checksum implementation. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From YANG Xudong
Subject Re: [PATCH] Add loongarch native checksum implementation.
Date
Msg-id da768d47-7534-c347-719a-06d8516cf939@ymatrix.cn
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Add loongarch native checksum implementation.  (John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Add loongarch native checksum implementation.
List pgsql-hackers
Thanks for the comment. I have updated the patch to v3. Please have a look.


On 2023/8/7 19:01, John Naylor wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 8:28 AM YANG Xudong <yangxudong@ymatrix.cn 
> <mailto:yangxudong@ymatrix.cn>> wrote:
>  > > +# If the intrinsics are supported, sets 
> pgac_loongarch_crc32c_intrinsics,
>  > > +# and CFLAGS_CRC.
>  > >
>  > > +# Check if __builtin_loongarch_crcc_* intrinsics can be used
>  > > +# with the default compiler flags.
>  > > +# CFLAGS_CRC is set if the extra flag is required.
>  > >
>  > > Same here -- it seems we don't need to set CFLAGS_CRC at all. Can you
>  > > confirm?
>  > >
>  >
>  > We don't need to set CFLAGS_CRC as commented. I have updated the
>  > configure script to make it align with the logic in meson build script.
> 
> (Looking again at v2)
> 
> The compilation test is found in c-compiler.m4, which still has all 
> logic for CFLAGS_CRC, including saving and restoring the old CFLAGS. Can 
> this also be simplified?

Fixed the function in c-compiler.m4 by removing the function argument 
and the logic of handling CFLAGS and CFLAGS_CRC.


> 
> I diff'd pg_crc32c_loongarch.c with the current other files, and found 
> it is structurally the same as the Arm implementation. That's logical if 
> memory alignment is important.
> 
>    /*
> - * ARMv8 doesn't require alignment, but aligned memory access is
> - * significantly faster. Process leading bytes so that the loop below
> - * starts with a pointer aligned to eight bytes.
> + * Aligned memory access is significantly faster.
> + * Process leading bytes so that the loop below starts with a pointer 
> aligned to eight bytes.
> 
> Can you confirm the alignment requirement -- it's not clear what the 
> intention is since "doesn't require" wasn't carried over. Is there any 
> documentation (or even a report in some other context) about aligned vs 
> unaligned memory access performance?

It is in the official document that the alignment is not required.


https://github.com/loongson/la-softdev-convention/blob/master/la-softdev-convention.adoc#74-unaligned-memory-access-support


However, I found this patch in LKML that shows great performance gain 
when using aligned memory access similar to this patch.

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230410115734.93365-1-wangrui@loongson.cn/

So I guess using aligned memory access is necessary and I have updated 
the comment in the code.


> 
> --
> John Naylor
> EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com <http://www.enterprisedb.com>
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: new system catalog pg_wait_event
Next
From: Andrey Lepikhov
Date:
Subject: Re: [PoC] Reducing planning time when tables have many partitions