--- /dev/null
+// ====================================================================
+// Written by Andy Polyakov <appro@fy.chalmers.se> for the OpenSSL
+// project.
+//
+// Rights for redistribution and usage in source and binary forms are
+// granted according to the OpenSSL license. Warranty of any kind is
+// disclaimed.
+// ====================================================================
+
+.ident "rc4-ia64.S, Version 1.0"
+.ident "IA-64 ISA artwork by Andy Polyakov <appro@fy.chalmers.se>"
+
+// What's wrong with compiler generated code? Because of the nature of
+// C language, compiler doesn't [dare to] reorder load and stores. But
+// being memory-bound, RC4 should benefit from reorder [on in-order-
+// execution core such as IA-64]. But what can we reorder? At the very
+// least we can safely reorder references to key schedule in respect
+// to input and output streams. Secondly, less obvious, it's possible
+// to pull up some references to elements of the key schedule itself.
+// Fact is that such prior loads are not safe only for "degenerated"
+// key schedule, when all elements equal to the same value, which is
+// never the case [key schedule setup routine makes sure it's not].
+// Furthermore. In order to compress loop body to the minimum, I chose
+// to deploy deposit instruction, which substitutes for the whole
+// key->data+((x&255)<<log2(sizeof(key->data[0]))). This unfortunately
+// requires key->data to be aligned at sizeof(key->data) boundary.
+// This is why you'll find "RC4_INT pad[512-256-2];" addenum to RC4_KEY
+// and "d=(RC4_INT *)(((size_t)(d+255))&~(sizeof(key->data)-1));" in
+// rc4_skey.c [and rc4_enc.c, where it's retained for debugging
+// purposes]. Throughput is ~210MBps on 900MHz CPU, which is is >3x
+// faster than gcc generated code and +30% - if compared to HP-UX C.
+// Unrolling loop below should give >30% on top of that...
+
+.text
+.explicit
+
+#if defined(_HPUX_SOURCE) && !defined(_LP64)
+# define ADDP addp4
+#else
+# define ADDP add
+#endif
+
+#define SZ 4 // this is set to sizeof(RC4_INT)
+// SZ==4 seems to be optimal. At least SZ==8 is not any faster, not for
+// assembler implementation, while SZ==1 code is ~30% slower.
+#if SZ==1 // RC4_INT is unsigned char
+# define LDKEY ld1
+# define STKEY st1
+# define OFF 0
+#elif SZ==4 // RC4_INT is unsigned int
+# define LDKEY ld4
+# define STKEY st4
+# define OFF 2
+#elif SZ==8 // RC4_INT is unsigned long
+# define LDKEY ld8
+# define STKEY st8
+# define OFF 3
+#endif
+
+out=r8; // [expanded] output pointer
+inp=r9; // [expanded] output pointer
+prsave=r10;
+key=r28; // [expanded] pointer to RC4_KEY
+ksch=r29; // (key->data+255)[&~(sizeof(key->data)-1)]
+xx=r30;
+yy=r31;
+
+// void RC4(RC4_KEY *key,size_t len,const void *inp,void *out);
+.global RC4#
+.proc RC4#
+.align 32
+.skip 16
+RC4:
+ .prologue
+ .fframe 0
+ .save ar.pfs,r2
+ .save ar.lc,r3
+ .save pr,prsave
+{ .mii; alloc r2=ar.pfs,4,12,0,16
+ mov prsave=pr
+ ADDP key=0,in0 };;
+{ .mib; cmp.eq p6,p0=0,in1 // len==0?
+ mov r3=ar.lc
+(p6) br.ret.spnt.many b0 };; // emergency exit
+
+ .body
+ .rotr dat[4],key_x[4],tx[2],rnd[2],key_y[2],ty[1];
+
+{ .mib; LDKEY xx=[key],SZ // load key->x
+ add in1=-1,in1 // adjust len for loop counter
+ nop.b 0 }
+{ .mib; ADDP inp=0,in2
+ ADDP out=0,in3
+ brp.loop.imp .Ltop,.Lexit-16 };;
+{ .mmi; LDKEY yy=[key] // load key->y
+ add ksch=(255+1)*SZ,key // as ksch will be used with
+ // deposit instruction only,
+ // I don't have to &~255...
+ mov ar.lc=in1 }
+{ .mmi; nop.m 0
+ add xx=1,xx
+ mov pr.rot=1<<16 };;
+{ .mii; nop.m 0
+ dep key_x[1]=xx,ksch,OFF,8
+ mov ar.ec=3 };; // note that epilogue counter
+ // is off by 1. I compensate
+ // for this at exit...
+.Ltop:
+// The loop is scheduled for 3*(n+2) spin-rate on Itanium 2, which
+// theoretically gives asymptotic performance of clock frequency
+// divided by 3 bytes per seconds, or 500MBps on 1.5GHz CPU. Measured
+// performance however is distinctly lower than 1/4:-( The culplrit
+// seems to be *(out++)=dat, which inadvertently splits the bundle,
+// even though there is M-unit available... Unrolling is due...
+// Unrolled loop should collect output with variable shift instruction
+// in order to avoid starvation for integer shifter... Only output
+// pointer has to be aligned... It should be possible to get pretty
+// close to theoretical peak...
+{ .mmi; (p16) LDKEY tx[0]=[key_x[1]] // tx=key[xx]
+ (p17) LDKEY ty[0]=[key_y[1]] // ty=key[yy]
+ (p18) dep rnd[1]=rnd[1],ksch,OFF,8} // &key[(tx+ty)&255]
+{ .mmi; (p19) st1 [out]=dat[3],1 // *(out++)=dat
+ (p16) add xx=1,xx // x++
+ (p0) nop.i 0 };;
+{ .mmi; (p18) LDKEY rnd[1]=[rnd[1]] // rnd=key[(tx+ty)&255]
+ (p16) ld1 dat[0]=[inp],1 // dat=*(inp++)
+ (p16) dep key_x[0]=xx,ksch,OFF,8 } // &key[xx&255]
+{ .mmi; (p0) nop.m 0
+ (p16) add yy=yy,tx[0] // y+=tx
+ (p0) nop.i 0 };;
+{ .mmi; (p17) STKEY [key_y[1]]=tx[1] // key[yy]=tx
+ (p17) STKEY [key_x[2]]=ty[0] // key[xx]=ty
+ (p16) dep key_y[0]=yy,ksch,OFF,8 } // &key[yy&255]
+{ .mmb; (p17) add rnd[0]=tx[1],ty[0] // tx+=ty
+ (p18) xor dat[2]=dat[2],rnd[1] // dat^=rnd
+ br.ctop.sptk .Ltop };;
+.Lexit:
+{ .mib; STKEY [key]=yy,-SZ // save key->y
+ mov pr=prsave,0x1ffff
+ nop.b 0 }
+{ .mib; st1 [out]=dat[3],1 // compensate for truncated
+ // epilogue counter
+ add xx=-1,xx
+ nop.b 0 };;
+{ .mib; STKEY [key]=xx // save key->x
+ mov ar.lc=r3
+ br.ret.sptk.many b0 };;
+.endp RC4#
projects / oweals / openssl.git / commitdiff