Re: Improve CRC32C performance on SSE4.2

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Devulapalli, Raghuveer" <raghuveer(dot)devulapalli(at)intel(dot)com>
Cc: John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Shankaran, Akash" <akash(dot)shankaran(at)intel(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Improve CRC32C performance on SSE4.2
Date: 2025-02-12 22:01:58
Message-ID: Z60aVnYHjxsh9XYo@nathan
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 09:48:57PM +0000, Devulapalli, Raghuveer wrote:
>> I think the idea behind USE_SSE42_CRC32C is to avoid the function pointer
>> overhead if possible. I looked at switching to always using runtime checks for this
>> stuff, and we concluded that we'd better not [0].
>
> Does that mean we want this feature for the new PCLMUL (and AVX-512) crc32c implementations too? The code for that will look a little ugly, I might need to think about a cleaner way to do this.

Well, I suspect the AVX-512 version will pretty much always need the
runtime check given that its not available on a lot of newer hardware and
requires a bunch of extra runtime checks (see pg_popcount_avx512.c). But
it might be worth doing for PCLMUL. Otherwise, I think we'd have to leave
out the PCLMUL optimizations if built with -msse4.2 -mpclmul because we
don't want to regress existing -msse4.2 users with a runtime check.

--
nathan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Smith 2025-02-12 22:02:30 Re: describe special values in GUC descriptions more consistently
Previous Message Jelte Fennema-Nio 2025-02-12 21:52:52 Re: Bump soft open file limit (RLIMIT_NOFILE) to hard limit on startup