On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 4:51 AM Jin-oh Kang jinoh.kang.kr@gmail.com wrote:
Wouldn't it make much more sense if we simply copied optimized copy routines from other libc implementations? They have specialised implementations for various architectures and microarchitectures (e.g. cache line size), not to mention the performance enhancements that have accumulated over time.
I think this is a really good point.
Another option is to just call system libc routines directly, although in this case it might interfere with stack unwinding, clear PE/unix separation, and msvcrt hotpatching.
Also a good idea, but the problem is that Windows dlls expect Windows calling conventions. There's no way (at least none I can immediately find) of wrapping a call to the system library without crashing.
On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 5:19 AM Rémi Bernon rbernon@codeweavers.com wrote:
Calling the system libc will need a "syscall", and will most likely defeat any performance improvement it could bring.
I don't think that works either, since these functions live in an .so and not in the kernel. Now, if it were possible, the system libraries are _significantly_ faster than anything Wine offers (even with SSE2 optimizations), so I think their raw speed would make up for any overhead.
On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 7:24 AM Jinoh Kang jinoh.kang.kr@gmail.com wrote:
As long as correctness and (any sort of) performance advantages are preserved, no further maintenance effort would be _strictly_ necessary.
Agree with this. It's not terribly difficult to prove their correctness. Once that's done you should never need to update them. A new architecture might introduce instructions that are even more performant, but I don't think it's conceivable that vector instructions would ever become slower than non-vectors. Doing so would cripple ~15 years of software development, nobody would buy a CPU that does that.
Here's how I see it: vector instructions were created specifically to solve this problem of operating on large regions of memory very quickly. Nearly every other program with similar requirements is either 1) Using these instructions, or 2) Relying on an external library that does so (note: that library is often msvcrt!). So I think Wine should do one of those two as well.
On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 8:59 AM Piotr Caban piotr.caban@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/2/22 13:19, Rémi Bernon wrote:
(I personally, believe that the efficient C implementation should come first, so that any non-supported hardware will at least benefit from it)
I also think that it will be good to add more efficient C implementation first (it will also show if SSE2 implementation is really needed).
Thanks, Piotr
I can't speak definitively, because it looks a little different for every function. But, overwhelmingly, my experience has been that nothing will run measurably faster than byte-by-byte functions without using vector instructions. Because the bottleneck isn't CPU power, the bottleneck is memory access. Like I said, vectors were created specifically to solve this problem, and IME you won't find notable performance gains without using them.
Now, we CAN use #ifdefs and preprocessor macros to define a fake __m128i on systems that don't natively support it. Then write emulation for each operation so that GCC can compile real vector instructions when possible (x86-64) and fallback to smaller types on systems without vector support. That way we'd avoid large vendor-specific code blocks. But you're not going to escape this idea of "we need to read large chunks and operate on them all at once".
Personally I think Jinoh's suggestion to find a compatible-licensed library and copy their code is best. Otherwise I sense this will become an endless circle of "do we really need it?" (yes, but this type of code is annoying to review) and Wine could benefit from using an implementation that's already widely-tested.
- Elaine