X-Git-Url: https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=crypto%2Fmodes%2Fasm%2Fghash-x86.pl;h=9fa4da1e915302e4fa0b8ab9b82c40fa337dd3fc;hp=c21664e53c2639c871c1cbe1d510cd30646e23b1;hb=8525950e7ea1bbee3bf0505b022e813f42e8fa01;hpb=1aa8a6297c600f3ef13895df887691a3ca244ab6 diff --git a/crypto/modes/asm/ghash-x86.pl b/crypto/modes/asm/ghash-x86.pl index c21664e53c..9fa4da1e91 100644 --- a/crypto/modes/asm/ghash-x86.pl +++ b/crypto/modes/asm/ghash-x86.pl @@ -7,23 +7,25 @@ # details see http://www.openssl.org/~appro/cryptogams/. # ==================================================================== # -# March 2010 +# March, May, June 2010 # # The module implements "4-bit" GCM GHASH function and underlying # single multiplication operation in GF(2^128). "4-bit" means that it # uses 256 bytes per-key table [+64/128 bytes fixed table]. It has two # code paths: vanilla x86 and vanilla MMX. Former will be executed on -# 486 and Pentium, latter on all others. Performance results are for -# streamed GHASH subroutine and are expressed in cycles per processed -# byte, less is better: +# 486 and Pentium, latter on all others. MMX GHASH features so called +# "528B" variant of "4-bit" method utilizing additional 256+16 bytes +# of per-key storage [+512 bytes shared table]. Performance results +# are for streamed GHASH subroutine and are expressed in cycles per +# processed byte, less is better: # # gcc 2.95.3(*) MMX assembler x86 assembler # # Pentium 100/112(**) - 50 -# PIII 63 /77 16 24 -# P4 96 /122 30 84(***) -# Opteron 50 /71 21 30 -# Core2 54 /68 12.5 18 +# PIII 63 /77 12.2 24 +# P4 96 /122 18.0 84(***) +# Opteron 50 /71 10.1 30 +# Core2 54 /68 8.6 18 # # (*) gcc 3.4.x was observed to generate few percent slower code, # which is one of reasons why 2.95.3 results were chosen, @@ -33,9 +35,10 @@ # position-independent; # (***) see comment in non-MMX routine for further details; # -# To summarize, it's >2-3 times faster than gcc-generated code. To +# To summarize, it's >2-5 times faster than gcc-generated code. To # anchor it to something else SHA1 assembler processes one byte in -# 11-13 cycles on contemporary x86 cores. +# 11-13 cycles on contemporary x86 cores. As for choice of MMX in +# particular, see comment at the end of the file... # May 2010 # @@ -317,6 +320,162 @@ if (!$x86only) {{{ &static_label("rem_4bit"); +if (0) {{ # "May" MMX version is kept for reference... + +$S=12; # shift factor for rem_4bit + +&function_begin_B("_mmx_gmult_4bit_inner"); +# MMX version performs 3.5 times better on P4 (see comment in non-MMX +# routine for further details), 100% better on Opteron, ~70% better +# on Core2 and PIII... In other words effort is considered to be well +# spent... Since initial release the loop was unrolled in order to +# "liberate" register previously used as loop counter. Instead it's +# used to optimize critical path in 'Z.hi ^= rem_4bit[Z.lo&0xf]'. +# The path involves move of Z.lo from MMX to integer register, +# effective address calculation and finally merge of value to Z.hi. +# Reference to rem_4bit is scheduled so late that I had to >>4 +# rem_4bit elements. This resulted in 20-45% procent improvement +# on contemporary ยต-archs. +{ + my $cnt; + my $rem_4bit = "eax"; + my @rem = ($Zhh,$Zll); + my $nhi = $Zhl; + my $nlo = $Zlh; + + my ($Zlo,$Zhi) = ("mm0","mm1"); + my $tmp = "mm2"; + + &xor ($nlo,$nlo); # avoid partial register stalls on PIII + &mov ($nhi,$Zll); + &mov (&LB($nlo),&LB($nhi)); + &shl (&LB($nlo),4); + &and ($nhi,0xf0); + &movq ($Zlo,&QWP(8,$Htbl,$nlo)); + &movq ($Zhi,&QWP(0,$Htbl,$nlo)); + &movd ($rem[0],$Zlo); + + for ($cnt=28;$cnt>=-2;$cnt--) { + my $odd = $cnt&1; + my $nix = $odd ? $nlo : $nhi; + + &shl (&LB($nlo),4) if ($odd); + &psrlq ($Zlo,4); + &movq ($tmp,$Zhi); + &psrlq ($Zhi,4); + &pxor ($Zlo,&QWP(8,$Htbl,$nix)); + &mov (&LB($nlo),&BP($cnt/2,$inp)) if (!$odd && $cnt>=0); + &psllq ($tmp,60); + &and ($nhi,0xf0) if ($odd); + &pxor ($Zhi,&QWP(0,$rem_4bit,$rem[1],8)) if ($cnt<28); + &and ($rem[0],0xf); + &pxor ($Zhi,&QWP(0,$Htbl,$nix)); + &mov ($nhi,$nlo) if (!$odd && $cnt>=0); + &movd ($rem[1],$Zlo); + &pxor ($Zlo,$tmp); + + push (@rem,shift(@rem)); # "rotate" registers + } + + &mov ($inp,&DWP(4,$rem_4bit,$rem[1],8)); # last rem_4bit[rem] + + &psrlq ($Zlo,32); # lower part of Zlo is already there + &movd ($Zhl,$Zhi); + &psrlq ($Zhi,32); + &movd ($Zlh,$Zlo); + &movd ($Zhh,$Zhi); + &shl ($inp,4); # compensate for rem_4bit[i] being >>4 + + &bswap ($Zll); + &bswap ($Zhl); + &bswap ($Zlh); + &xor ($Zhh,$inp); + &bswap ($Zhh); + + &ret (); +} +&function_end_B("_mmx_gmult_4bit_inner"); + +&function_begin("gcm_gmult_4bit_mmx"); + &mov ($inp,&wparam(0)); # load Xi + &mov ($Htbl,&wparam(1)); # load Htable + + &call (&label("pic_point")); + &set_label("pic_point"); + &blindpop("eax"); + &lea ("eax",&DWP(&label("rem_4bit")."-".&label("pic_point"),"eax")); + + &movz ($Zll,&BP(15,$inp)); + + &call ("_mmx_gmult_4bit_inner"); + + &mov ($inp,&wparam(0)); # load Xi + &emms (); + &mov (&DWP(12,$inp),$Zll); + &mov (&DWP(4,$inp),$Zhl); + &mov (&DWP(8,$inp),$Zlh); + &mov (&DWP(0,$inp),$Zhh); +&function_end("gcm_gmult_4bit_mmx"); + +# Streamed version performs 20% better on P4, 7% on Opteron, +# 10% on Core2 and PIII... +&function_begin("gcm_ghash_4bit_mmx"); + &mov ($Zhh,&wparam(0)); # load Xi + &mov ($Htbl,&wparam(1)); # load Htable + &mov ($inp,&wparam(2)); # load in + &mov ($Zlh,&wparam(3)); # load len + + &call (&label("pic_point")); + &set_label("pic_point"); + &blindpop("eax"); + &lea ("eax",&DWP(&label("rem_4bit")."-".&label("pic_point"),"eax")); + + &add ($Zlh,$inp); + &mov (&wparam(3),$Zlh); # len to point at the end of input + &stack_push(4+1); # +1 for stack alignment + + &mov ($Zll,&DWP(12,$Zhh)); # load Xi[16] + &mov ($Zhl,&DWP(4,$Zhh)); + &mov ($Zlh,&DWP(8,$Zhh)); + &mov ($Zhh,&DWP(0,$Zhh)); + &jmp (&label("mmx_outer_loop")); + + &set_label("mmx_outer_loop",16); + &xor ($Zll,&DWP(12,$inp)); + &xor ($Zhl,&DWP(4,$inp)); + &xor ($Zlh,&DWP(8,$inp)); + &xor ($Zhh,&DWP(0,$inp)); + &mov (&wparam(2),$inp); + &mov (&DWP(12,"esp"),$Zll); + &mov (&DWP(4,"esp"),$Zhl); + &mov (&DWP(8,"esp"),$Zlh); + &mov (&DWP(0,"esp"),$Zhh); + + &mov ($inp,"esp"); + &shr ($Zll,24); + + &call ("_mmx_gmult_4bit_inner"); + + &mov ($inp,&wparam(2)); + &lea ($inp,&DWP(16,$inp)); + &cmp ($inp,&wparam(3)); + &jb (&label("mmx_outer_loop")); + + &mov ($inp,&wparam(0)); # load Xi + &emms (); + &mov (&DWP(12,$inp),$Zll); + &mov (&DWP(4,$inp),$Zhl); + &mov (&DWP(8,$inp),$Zlh); + &mov (&DWP(0,$inp),$Zhh); + + &stack_pop(4+1); +&function_end("gcm_ghash_4bit_mmx"); + +}} else {{ # "June" MMX version... + # ... has "April" gcm_gmult_4bit_mmx with folded loop. + # This is done to conserve code size... +$S=16; # shift factor for rem_4bit + sub mmx_loop() { # MMX version performs 2.8 times better on P4 (see comment in non-MMX # routine for further details), 40% better on Opteron and Core2, 50% @@ -430,56 +589,210 @@ sub mmx_loop() { &mov (&DWP(0,$inp),$Zhh); &function_end("gcm_gmult_4bit_mmx"); -# Streamed version performs 20% better on P4, 7% on Opteron, -# 10% on Core2 and PIII... -&function_begin("gcm_ghash_4bit_mmx"); - &mov ($Zhh,&wparam(0)); # load Xi - &mov ($Htbl,&wparam(1)); # load Htable - &mov ($inp,&wparam(2)); # load in - &mov ($Zlh,&wparam(3)); # load len - - &call (&label("pic_point")); - &set_label("pic_point"); - &blindpop("eax"); - &lea ("eax",&DWP(&label("rem_4bit")."-".&label("pic_point"),"eax")); +###################################################################### +# Below subroutine is "528B" variant of "4-bit" GCM GHASH function +# (see gcm128.c for details). It provides further 20-40% performance +# improvement over *previous* version of this module. - &add ($Zlh,$inp); - &mov (&wparam(3),$Zlh); # len to point at the end of input - &stack_push(4+1); # +1 for stack alignment +&static_label("rem_8bit"); - &mov ($Zll,&DWP(12,$Zhh)); # load Xi[16] - &mov ($Zhl,&DWP(4,$Zhh)); - &mov ($Zlh,&DWP(8,$Zhh)); - &mov ($Zhh,&DWP(0,$Zhh)); - &jmp (&label("mmx_outer_loop")); - - &set_label("mmx_outer_loop",16); - &xor ($Zll,&DWP(12,$inp)); - &xor ($Zhl,&DWP(4,$inp)); - &xor ($Zlh,&DWP(8,$inp)); - &xor ($Zhh,&DWP(0,$inp)); - &mov (&DWP(12,"esp"),$Zll); - &mov (&DWP(4,"esp"),$Zhl); - &mov (&DWP(8,"esp"),$Zlh); - &mov (&DWP(0,"esp"),$Zhh); +&function_begin("gcm_ghash_4bit_mmx"); +{ my ($Zlo,$Zhi) = ("mm7","mm6"); + my $rem_8bit = "esi"; + my $Htbl = "ebx"; + + # parameter block + &mov ("eax",&wparam(0)); # Xi + &mov ("ebx",&wparam(1)); # Htable + &mov ("ecx",&wparam(2)); # inp + &mov ("edx",&wparam(3)); # len + &mov ("ebp","esp"); # original %esp + &call (&label("pic_point")); + &set_label ("pic_point"); + &blindpop ($rem_8bit); + &lea ($rem_8bit,&DWP(&label("rem_8bit")."-".&label("pic_point"),$rem_8bit)); + + &sub ("esp",512+16+16); # allocate stack frame... + &and ("esp",-64); # ...and align it + &sub ("esp",16); # place for (u8)(H[]<<4) + + &add ("edx","ecx"); # pointer to the end of input + &mov (&DWP(528+16+0,"esp"),"eax"); # save Xi + &mov (&DWP(528+16+8,"esp"),"edx"); # save inp+len + &mov (&DWP(528+16+12,"esp"),"ebp"); # save original %esp + + { my @lo = ("mm0","mm1","mm2"); + my @hi = ("mm3","mm4","mm5"); + my @tmp = ("mm6","mm7"); + my $off1=0,$off2=0,$i; + + &add ($Htbl,128); # optimize for size + &lea ("edi",&DWP(16+128,"esp")); + &lea ("ebp",&DWP(16+256+128,"esp")); + + # decompose Htable (low and high parts are kept separately), + # generate Htable>>4, save to stack... + for ($i=0;$i<18;$i++) { + + &mov ("edx",&DWP(16*$i+8-128,$Htbl)) if ($i<16); + &movq ($lo[0],&QWP(16*$i+8-128,$Htbl)) if ($i<16); + &psllq ($tmp[1],60) if ($i>1); + &movq ($hi[0],&QWP(16*$i+0-128,$Htbl)) if ($i<16); + &por ($lo[2],$tmp[1]) if ($i>1); + &movq (&QWP($off1-128,"edi"),$lo[1]) if ($i>0 && $i<17); + &psrlq ($lo[1],4) if ($i>0 && $i<17); + &movq (&QWP($off1,"edi"),$hi[1]) if ($i>0 && $i<17); + &movq ($tmp[0],$hi[1]) if ($i>0 && $i<17); + &movq (&QWP($off2-128,"ebp"),$lo[2]) if ($i>1); + &psrlq ($hi[1],4) if ($i>0 && $i<17); + &movq (&QWP($off2,"ebp"),$hi[2]) if ($i>1); + &shl ("edx",4) if ($i<16); + &mov (&BP($i,"esp"),&LB("edx")) if ($i<16); + + unshift (@lo,pop(@lo)); # "rotate" registers + unshift (@hi,pop(@hi)); + unshift (@tmp,pop(@tmp)); + $off1 += 8 if ($i>0); + $off2 += 8 if ($i>1); + } + } + + &movq ($Zhi,&QWP(0,"eax")); + &mov ("ebx",&DWP(8,"eax")); + &mov ("edx",&DWP(12,"eax")); # load Xi + +&set_label("outer",16); + { my $nlo = "eax"; + my $dat = "edx"; + my @nhi = ("edi","ebp"); + my @rem = ("ebx","ecx"); + my @red = ("mm0","mm1","mm2"); + my $tmp = "mm3"; + + &xor ($dat,&DWP(12,"ecx")); # merge input + &xor ("ebx",&DWP(8,"ecx")); + &pxor ($Zhi,&QWP(0,"ecx")); + &lea ("ecx",&DWP(16,"ecx")); # inp+=16 + #&mov (&DWP(528+12,"esp"),$dat); # save inp^Xi + &mov (&DWP(528+8,"esp"),"ebx"); + &movq (&QWP(528+0,"esp"),$Zhi); + &mov (&DWP(528+16+4,"esp"),"ecx"); # save inp + + &xor ($nlo,$nlo); + &rol ($dat,8); + &mov (&LB($nlo),&LB($dat)); + &mov ($nhi[1],$nlo); + &and (&LB($nlo),0x0f); + &shr ($nhi[1],4); + &pxor ($red[0],$red[0]); + &rol ($dat,8); # next byte + &pxor ($red[1],$red[1]); + &pxor ($red[2],$red[2]); + + # Just like in "May" verson modulo-schedule for critical path in + # 'Z.hi ^= rem_8bit[Z.lo&0xff^((u8)H[nhi]<<4)]<<48'. Final xor + # is scheduled so late that rem_8bit is shifted *right* by 16, + # which is why last argument to pinsrw is 2, which corresponds to + # <<32... + for ($j=11,$i=0;$i<15;$i++) { + + if ($i>0) { + &pxor ($Zlo,&QWP(16,"esp",$nlo,8)); # Z^=H[nlo] + &rol ($dat,8); # next byte + &pxor ($Zhi,&QWP(16+128,"esp",$nlo,8)); - &shr ($Zll,24); + &pxor ($Zlo,$tmp); + &pxor ($Zhi,&QWP(16+256+128,"esp",$nhi[0],8)); + &xor (&LB($rem[1]),&BP(0,"esp",$nhi[0])); # rem^H[nhi]<<4 + } else { + &movq ($Zlo,&QWP(16,"esp",$nlo,8)); + &movq ($Zhi,&QWP(16+128,"esp",$nlo,8)); + } - &mmx_loop("esp","eax"); + &mov (&LB($nlo),&LB($dat)); + &mov ($dat,&DWP(528+$j,"esp")) if (--$j%4==0); - &lea ($inp,&DWP(16,$inp)); - &cmp ($inp,&wparam(3)); - &jb (&label("mmx_outer_loop")); - - &mov ($inp,&wparam(0)); # load Xi - &emms (); - &mov (&DWP(12,$inp),$Zll); - &mov (&DWP(4,$inp),$Zhl); - &mov (&DWP(8,$inp),$Zlh); - &mov (&DWP(0,$inp),$Zhh); + &movd ($rem[0],$Zlo); + &movz ($rem[1],&LB($rem[1])) if ($i>0); + &psrlq ($Zlo,8); - &stack_pop(4+1); + &movq ($tmp,$Zhi); + &mov ($nhi[0],$nlo); + &psrlq ($Zhi,8); + + &pxor ($Zlo,&QWP(16+256+0,"esp",$nhi[1],8)); # Z^=H[nhi]>>4 + &and (&LB($nlo),0x0f); + &psllq ($tmp,56); + + &pxor ($Zhi,$red[1]) if ($i>1); + &shr ($nhi[0],4); + &pinsrw ($red[0],&WP(0,$rem_8bit,$rem[1],2),2) if ($i>0); + + unshift (@red,pop(@red)); # "rotate" registers + unshift (@rem,pop(@rem)); + unshift (@nhi,pop(@nhi)); + } + + &pxor ($Zlo,&QWP(16,"esp",$nlo,8)); # Z^=H[nlo] + &pxor ($Zhi,&QWP(16+128,"esp",$nlo,8)); + &xor (&LB($rem[1]),&BP(0,"esp",$nhi[0])); #$rem[0]); # rem^H[nhi]<<4 + + &pxor ($Zlo,$tmp); + &pxor ($Zhi,&QWP(16+256+128,"esp",$nhi[0],8)); + &movz ($rem[1],&LB($rem[1])); + + &pxor ($red[2],$red[2]); # clear 2nd word + &psllq ($red[1],4); + + &movd ($rem[0],$Zlo); + &psrlq ($Zlo,4); + + &movq ($tmp,$Zhi); + &psrlq ($Zhi,4); + &shl ($rem[0],4); + + &pxor ($Zlo,&QWP(16,"esp",$nhi[1],8)); # Z^=H[nhi] + &psllq ($tmp,60); + &movz ($rem[0],&LB($rem[0])); + + &pxor ($Zlo,$tmp); + &pxor ($Zhi,&QWP(16+128,"esp",$nhi[1],8)); + + &pinsrw ($red[0],&WP(0,$rem_8bit,$rem[1],2),2); + &pxor ($Zhi,$red[1]); + + &movd ($dat,$Zlo); + &pinsrw ($red[2],&WP(0,$rem_8bit,$rem[0],2),3); + + &psllq ($red[0],12); + &pxor ($Zhi,$red[0]); + &psrlq ($Zlo,32); + &pxor ($Zhi,$red[2]); + + &mov ("ecx",&DWP(528+16+4,"esp")); # restore inp + &movd ("ebx",$Zlo); + &movq ($tmp,$Zhi); # 01234567 + &psllw ($Zhi,8); # 1.3.5.7. + &psrlw ($tmp,8); # .0.2.4.6 + &por ($Zhi,$tmp); # 10325476 + &bswap ($dat); + &pshufw ($Zhi,$Zhi,0b00011011); # 76543210 + &bswap ("ebx"); + + &cmp ("ecx",&DWP(528+16+8,"esp")); # are we done? + &jne (&label("outer")); + } + + &mov ("eax",&DWP(528+16+0,"esp")); # restore Xi + &mov (&DWP(12,"eax"),"edx"); + &mov (&DWP(8,"eax"),"ebx"); + &movq (&QWP(0,"eax"),$Zhi); + + &mov ("esp",&DWP(528+16+12,"esp")); # restore original %esp + &emms (); +} &function_end("gcm_ghash_4bit_mmx"); +}} if ($sse2) {{ ###################################################################### @@ -552,8 +865,8 @@ if (1) { # Algorithm 9 with <<1 twist. # candidate for interleaving with 64x64 # multiplication. Pre-modulo-scheduled loop # was found to be ~20% faster than Algorithm 5 - # below. Algorithm 9 was then chosen and - # optimized further... + # below. Algorithm 9 was therefore chosen for + # further optimization... sub reduction_alg9 { # 17/13 times faster than Intel version my ($Xhi,$Xi) = @_; @@ -567,7 +880,7 @@ my ($Xhi,$Xi) = @_; &psllq ($Xi,57); # &movdqa ($T2,$Xi); # &pslldq ($Xi,8); - &psrldq ($T2,8); # + &psrldq ($T2,8); # &pxor ($Xi,$T1); &pxor ($Xhi,$T2); # @@ -952,11 +1265,66 @@ my ($Xhi,$Xi)=@_; }} # $sse2 &set_label("rem_4bit",64); - &data_word(0,0x0000<<16,0,0x1C20<<16,0,0x3840<<16,0,0x2460<<16); - &data_word(0,0x7080<<16,0,0x6CA0<<16,0,0x48C0<<16,0,0x54E0<<16); - &data_word(0,0xE100<<16,0,0xFD20<<16,0,0xD940<<16,0,0xC560<<16); - &data_word(0,0x9180<<16,0,0x8DA0<<16,0,0xA9C0<<16,0,0xB5E0<<16); + &data_word(0,0x0000<<$S,0,0x1C20<<$S,0,0x3840<<$S,0,0x2460<<$S); + &data_word(0,0x7080<<$S,0,0x6CA0<<$S,0,0x48C0<<$S,0,0x54E0<<$S); + &data_word(0,0xE100<<$S,0,0xFD20<<$S,0,0xD940<<$S,0,0xC560<<$S); + &data_word(0,0x9180<<$S,0,0x8DA0<<$S,0,0xA9C0<<$S,0,0xB5E0<<$S); +&set_label("rem_8bit",64); + &data_short(0x0000,0x01C2,0x0384,0x0246,0x0708,0x06CA,0x048C,0x054E); + &data_short(0x0E10,0x0FD2,0x0D94,0x0C56,0x0918,0x08DA,0x0A9C,0x0B5E); + &data_short(0x1C20,0x1DE2,0x1FA4,0x1E66,0x1B28,0x1AEA,0x18AC,0x196E); + &data_short(0x1230,0x13F2,0x11B4,0x1076,0x1538,0x14FA,0x16BC,0x177E); + &data_short(0x3840,0x3982,0x3BC4,0x3A06,0x3F48,0x3E8A,0x3CCC,0x3D0E); + &data_short(0x3650,0x3792,0x35D4,0x3416,0x3158,0x309A,0x32DC,0x331E); + &data_short(0x2460,0x25A2,0x27E4,0x2626,0x2368,0x22AA,0x20EC,0x212E); + &data_short(0x2A70,0x2BB2,0x29F4,0x2836,0x2D78,0x2CBA,0x2EFC,0x2F3E); + &data_short(0x7080,0x7142,0x7304,0x72C6,0x7788,0x764A,0x740C,0x75CE); + &data_short(0x7E90,0x7F52,0x7D14,0x7CD6,0x7998,0x785A,0x7A1C,0x7BDE); + &data_short(0x6CA0,0x6D62,0x6F24,0x6EE6,0x6BA8,0x6A6A,0x682C,0x69EE); + &data_short(0x62B0,0x6372,0x6134,0x60F6,0x65B8,0x647A,0x663C,0x67FE); + &data_short(0x48C0,0x4902,0x4B44,0x4A86,0x4FC8,0x4E0A,0x4C4C,0x4D8E); + &data_short(0x46D0,0x4712,0x4554,0x4496,0x41D8,0x401A,0x425C,0x439E); + &data_short(0x54E0,0x5522,0x5764,0x56A6,0x53E8,0x522A,0x506C,0x51AE); + &data_short(0x5AF0,0x5B32,0x5974,0x58B6,0x5DF8,0x5C3A,0x5E7C,0x5FBE); + &data_short(0xE100,0xE0C2,0xE284,0xE346,0xE608,0xE7CA,0xE58C,0xE44E); + &data_short(0xEF10,0xEED2,0xEC94,0xED56,0xE818,0xE9DA,0xEB9C,0xEA5E); + &data_short(0xFD20,0xFCE2,0xFEA4,0xFF66,0xFA28,0xFBEA,0xF9AC,0xF86E); + &data_short(0xF330,0xF2F2,0xF0B4,0xF176,0xF438,0xF5FA,0xF7BC,0xF67E); + &data_short(0xD940,0xD882,0xDAC4,0xDB06,0xDE48,0xDF8A,0xDDCC,0xDC0E); + &data_short(0xD750,0xD692,0xD4D4,0xD516,0xD058,0xD19A,0xD3DC,0xD21E); + &data_short(0xC560,0xC4A2,0xC6E4,0xC726,0xC268,0xC3AA,0xC1EC,0xC02E); + &data_short(0xCB70,0xCAB2,0xC8F4,0xC936,0xCC78,0xCDBA,0xCFFC,0xCE3E); + &data_short(0x9180,0x9042,0x9204,0x93C6,0x9688,0x974A,0x950C,0x94CE); + &data_short(0x9F90,0x9E52,0x9C14,0x9DD6,0x9898,0x995A,0x9B1C,0x9ADE); + &data_short(0x8DA0,0x8C62,0x8E24,0x8FE6,0x8AA8,0x8B6A,0x892C,0x88EE); + &data_short(0x83B0,0x8272,0x8034,0x81F6,0x84B8,0x857A,0x873C,0x86FE); + &data_short(0xA9C0,0xA802,0xAA44,0xAB86,0xAEC8,0xAF0A,0xAD4C,0xAC8E); + &data_short(0xA7D0,0xA612,0xA454,0xA596,0xA0D8,0xA11A,0xA35C,0xA29E); + &data_short(0xB5E0,0xB422,0xB664,0xB7A6,0xB2E8,0xB32A,0xB16C,0xB0AE); + &data_short(0xBBF0,0xBA32,0xB874,0xB9B6,0xBCF8,0xBD3A,0xBF7C,0xBEBE); }}} # !$x86only &asciz("GHASH for x86, CRYPTOGAMS by "); &asm_finish(); + +# A question was risen about choice of vanilla MMX. Or rather why wasn't +# SSE2 chosen instead? In addition to the fact that MMX runs on legacy +# CPUs such as PIII, "4-bit" MMX version was observed to provide better +# performance than *corresponding* SSE2 one even on contemporary CPUs. +# SSE2 results were provided by Peter-Michael Hager. He maintains SSE2 +# implementation featuring full range of lookup-table sizes, but with +# per-invocation lookup table setup. Latter means that table size is +# chosen depending on how much data is to be hashed in every given call, +# more data - larger table. Best reported result for Core2 is ~4 cycles +# per processed byte out of 64KB block. Recall that this number accounts +# even for 64KB table setup overhead. As discussed in gcm128.c we choose +# to be more conservative in respect to lookup table sizes, but how +# do the results compare? Minimalistic "256B" MMX version delivers ~11 +# cycles on same platform. As also discussed in gcm128.c, next in line +# "8-bit Shoup's" method should deliver twice the performance of "4-bit" +# one. It should be also be noted that in SSE2 case improvement can be +# "super-linear," i.e. more than twice, mostly because >>8 maps to +# single instruction on SSE2 register. This is unlike "4-bit" case when +# >>4 maps to same amount of instructions in both MMX and SSE2 cases. +# Bottom line is that switch to SSE2 is considered to be justifiable +# only in case we choose to implement "8-bit" method...