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 22:19:37 |
Message-ID: | Z60eeem-RmEjzYwI@nathan |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 10:12:20PM +0000, Devulapalli, Raghuveer wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Sounds good to me. Although, users building with just -msse4.2 will now encounter an
> an additional pclmul runtime check. That would be a regression unless they update to
> building with both -msse4.2 and -mpclmul.
My thinking was that building with just -msse4.2 would cause the existing
SSE 4.2 implementation to be used (without the function pointer). That's
admittedly a bit goofy because they'd miss out on the PCLMUL optimization,
but things at least don't get any worse for them.
--
nathan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2025-02-12 22:36:11 | Re: Parallel heap vacuum |
Previous Message | Devulapalli, Raghuveer | 2025-02-12 22:12:20 | RE: Improve CRC32C performance on SSE4.2 |