RFR (M): 8150767: Update for x86 SHA Extensions enabling

[Christian Thalinger]

> On Feb 29, 2016, at 2:00 PM, Deshpande, Vivek R <vivek.r.deshpande at intel.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Christian
> 
> We used the SHA Extension implementations(https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-sha-extensions-implementations) for the JVM implementation
> of SHA1 and SHA256.

Will that extension only be available on Intel chips?

> It needed to have Intel copyright, so created a separate file.

That is reasonable.

> The white paper for the implementation is https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/article/402097/intel-sha-extensions-white-paper.pdf.
> 
> Regards,
> Vivek
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Thalinger [mailto:christian.thalinger at oracle.com] 
> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 1:58 PM
> To: Deshpande, Vivek R
> Cc: Vladimir Kozlov; hotspot compiler; Rukmannagari, Shravya
> Subject: Re: RFR (M): 8150767: Update for x86 SHA Extensions enabling
> 
> Why is the new file called macroAssembler_intel_x86.cpp?
> 
>> On Feb 29, 2016, at 11:29 AM, Deshpande, Vivek R <vivek.r.deshpande at intel.com> wrote:
>> 
>> HI Vladimir
>> 
>> Thank you for your review.
>> I have updated the patch with the changes you have suggested.
>> The new webrev is at this location:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vdeshpande/SHANI/8150767/webrev.01/
>> 
>> Regards
>> Vivek
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Vladimir Kozlov [mailto:vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com] 
>> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 6:50 PM
>> To: Deshpande, Vivek R; hotspot compiler
>> Cc: Viswanathan, Sandhya; Rukmannagari, Shravya
>> Subject: Re: RFR (M): 8150767: Update for x86 SHA Extensions enabling
>> 
>> Very nice, Vivek!!!
>> 
>> Did you run tests with both 32- and 64-bit VMs?
>> 
>> Small notes:
>> 
>> In vm_version_x86.hpp spacing are not aligned in next line:
>> 
>>   static bool supports_avxonly()    { return ((supports_avx2() || 
>> supports_avx()) && !supports_evex()); }
>> +  static bool supports_sha()      { return (_features & CPU_SHA) != 0; }
>> 
>> Flags setting code in vm_version_x86.cpp should be like this (you can check supports_sha() only once, don't split '} else {' line, set UseSHA false if all intrinsics flags are false (I included UseSHA512Intrinsics for future) ):
>> 
>>  if (supports_sha()) {
>>    if (FLAG_IS_DEFAULT(UseSHA)) {
>>      UseSHA = true;
>>    }
>>  } else if (UseSHA) {
>>    warning("SHA instructions are not available on this CPU");
>>    FLAG_SET_DEFAULT(UseSHA, false);
>>  }
>> 
>>  if (UseSHA) {
>>    if (FLAG_IS_DEFAULT(UseSHA1Intrinsics)) {
>>      FLAG_SET_DEFAULT(UseSHA1Intrinsics, true);
>>    }
>>  } else if (UseSHA1Intrinsics) {
>>    warning("Intrinsics for SHA-1 crypto hash functions not available on this CPU.");
>>    FLAG_SET_DEFAULT(UseSHA1Intrinsics, false);
>>  }
>> 
>>  if (UseSHA) {
>>    if (FLAG_IS_DEFAULT(UseSHA256Intrinsics)) {
>>      FLAG_SET_DEFAULT(UseSHA256Intrinsics, true);
>>    }
>>  } else if (UseSHA256Intrinsics) {
>>    warning("Intrinsics for SHA-224 and SHA-256 crypto hash functions not available on this CPU.");
>>    FLAG_SET_DEFAULT(UseSHA256Intrinsics, false);
>>  }
>> 
>>  if (UseSHA512Intrinsics) {
>>    warning("Intrinsics for SHA-384 and SHA-512 crypto hash functions not available on this CPU.");
>>    FLAG_SET_DEFAULT(UseSHA512Intrinsics, false);
>>  }
>> 
>>  if (!(UseSHA1Intrinsics || UseSHA256Intrinsics || UseSHA512Intrinsics)) {
>>    FLAG_SET_DEFAULT(UseSHA, false);
>>  }
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Vladimir
>> 
>> On 2/26/16 4:37 PM, Deshpande, Vivek R wrote:
>>> Hi all
>>> 
>>> I would like to contribute a patch which optimizesSHA-1 andSHA-256 for
>>> 64 and 32 bitX86architecture using Intel SHA extensions.
>>> 
>>> Could you please review and sponsor this patch.
>>> 
>>> Bug-id:
>>> 
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8150767
>>> webrev:
>>> 
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vdeshpande/SHANI/8150767/webrev.00/
>>> 
>>> Thanks and regards,
>>> 
>>> Vivek
>>> 
>