linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] add slice by 8 algorithm to crc32.c

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:	Fri, 5 Aug 2011 12:27:26 -0500
From:	"Bob Pearson" <rpearson@...temfabricworks.com>
To:	"'Joakim Tjernlund'" <joakim.tjernlund@...nsmode.se>
Cc:	"'Andrew Morton'" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"'frank zago'" <fzago@...temfabricworks.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] add slice by 8 algorithm to crc32.c

> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Modify all 'i' loops from for (i = 0; i < foo; i++) { ... } to for
(i =
> > foo
> > > > - 1; i >= 0; i--) { ... }
> > >
> > > That should be (i = foo; i ; --i) { ... }
> >
> > Shouldn't make much difference, branch on zero bit or branch on sign
bit.
> > But at the end of the day didn't help on Nehalem.

I figured out why "for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {...}" is faster than "for (;
len; len--) {...}" on my system.
The current code is

for (; Ien; len--) {
	load *++p
	...
}

Which turns into (in fake assembly)

top:
	dec len
	inc p
	load p
	...
	test len
	branch neq top

But when I replace that with 

for(i = 0; i < len; i++) {
	load *++p
	...
}

Gcc turns it into

top:
	load p[i]
	i++
	...
	compare i, len
	branch lt top

which is fewer instructions and i++ is well scheduled. Incrementing the
pointer has been moved out of the loop.

--
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/