linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitreversal program

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 19 May 2008 23:53:29 -0700
From:	John Hubbard <john.hubbard@...il.com>
To:	Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
CC:	Soumyadip Das Mahapatra <kernelhacker@...ualserver.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akinobu.mita@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitreversal program

Harvey Harrison wrote:

>> +static inline u32 gen_bit_rev(u32 x, u32 k)
>>   {
>> -       return byte_rev_table[byte];
>> +       if(k & 1)
>> +               x = (x & 0x55555555) << 1 | (x & 0xaaaaaaaa) >> 1;
>> +       if(k & 2)
>> +               x = (x & 0x33333333) << 2 | (x & 0xcccccccc) >> 2;
>> +       if(k & 4)
>> +               x = (x & 0x0f0f0f0f) << 4 | (x & 0xf0f0f0f0) >> 4;
>> +       if(k & 8)
>> +               x = (x & 0x00ff00ff) << 8 | (x & 0xff00ff00) >> 8;
>> +       if(k & 16)
>> +               x = (x & 0x0000ffff) << 16 | (x & 0xffff0000) >> 16;
>> +
>> +       return x;
>>   }
> 
> Why is this better than a single 256 byte table?
> 
> Harvey
> 

One reason it could be better, at least in some situations, is that the 
above is more likely to execute directly from the CPU's instruction 
cache. The table lookup appears more efficient at first, until you 
consider the memory caching hierarchy.

--John Hubbard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/