[PATCH v2 2/2] lpm: add a scalar version of lookupx4 function

[Bruce Richardson]

On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 01:20:50PM +0200, Stanisław Kardach wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 12:42 PM Bruce Richardson
> <bruce.richardson at intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 10:00:34AM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > > > From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richardson at intel.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, 30 May 2022 09.52
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 01:15:20PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:18:22 +0200
> > > > > Stanislaw Kardach <kda at semihalf.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +static inline void
> > > > > > +rte_lpm_lookupx4(const struct rte_lpm *lpm, xmm_t ip, uint32_t
> > > > hop[4],
> > > > > > +               uint32_t defv)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +       uint32_t nh;
> > > > > > +       int i, ret;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +       for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
> > > > > > +               ret = rte_lpm_lookup(lpm, ((rte_xmm_t)ip).u32[i], &nh);
> > > > > > +               hop[i] = (ret == 0) ? nh : defv;
> > > > > > +       }
> > > > > > +}
> > > > >
> > > > > For performance, manually unroll the loop.
> > > >
> > > > Given a constant 4x iterations, will compilers not unroll this
> > > > automatically. I think the loop is a little clearer if it can be kept
> > > >
> > > > /Bruce
> > >
> > > If in doubt, add this and look at the assembler output:
> > >
> > > #define REVIEW_INLINE_FUNCTIONS 1
> > >
> > > #if REVIEW_INLINE_FUNCTIONS /* For compiler output review purposes only. */
> > > #pragma GCC diagnostic push
> > > #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wmissing-prototypes"
> > > void review_rte_lpm_lookupx4(const struct rte_lpm *lpm, xmm_t ip, uint32_t hop[4], uint32_t defv)
> > > {
> > >       rte_lpm_lookupx4(lpm, ip, hop, defv);
> > > }
> > > #pragma GCC diagnostic pop
> > > #endif /* REVIEW_INLINE_FUNCTIONS */
> > >
> >
> > Used godbolt.org to check and indeed the function is not unrolled.
> > (Gcc 11.2, with flags "-O3 -march=icelake-server").
> >
> > Manually unrolling changes the assembly generated in interesting ways. For
> > example, it appears to generate more cmov-type instructions for the
> > miss/default-value case rather than using branches as in the looped
> > version. Whether this is better or not may depend upon usecase - if one
> > expects most lpm lookup entries to hit, then having (predictable) branches
> > may well be cheaper.
> >
> > In any case, I'll withdraw any object to unrolling, but I'm still not
> > convinced it's necessary.
> >
> > /Bruce
> Interestingly enough until I've defined unlikely() in godbolt, I did
> not get any automatic unrolling on godbolt (either with x86 or RISC-V
> GCC). Did you get any compilation warnings?

That matches what I saw. I then just used manual unrolling i.e. copy-paste
the 2 lines 4 times, to see what the output was like then.

> That said it only happens on O3 since it implies -fpeel-loops. O3 is
> the default for DPDK.