[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5581D37F.9090400@nod.at>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 22:07:27 +0200
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To: Orestes Leal Rodriguez <lukes357@...il.com>, bp@...en8.de
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] lib: small update for strlen, strnlen, use less cpu
instructions
Am 17.06.2015 um 00:51 schrieb Orestes Leal Rodriguez:
>> Use the force^Wcheckpatch.pl.
> This is the output of checkpatch.pl:
> output of checkpatch: total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 42 lines checked
> /root/string.c.patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission
But it does not apply at all.
Did you test it? I fear your mail client did some whitespace damage.
>> You need to explain that in the commit message, my young padawan.
> Very small update to strlen and strnlen that now use less cpu instructions by using a counter to avoid memory address
> arithmetic, which cause that the compiler adds more machine
> instructions for computing the length of the string just before
> returning from the functions, the old machine code is like the
> following:
>
> mov -0x4(%ebp),%edx
> mov 0x8(%ebp),%eax
> sub %eax,%edx
> mov %edx,%eax
> leave
> ret
>
>
> now in the new versions the value is not calculated anymore,
> instead he value of the counter is put on eax after the
> condition inside the loop no longer holds, and then return:
>
> mov -0x4(%ebp),%eax
> leave
> ret
>
> With this a few cpu instructions are saved.
x86_32 does not matter here as we have already an optimized strlen() in
arch/x86/lib/string_32.c.
Did you check whether the optimization is worth on other archs?
Hint: grep __HAVE_ARCH_STRLEN
>
> Signed-off-by: Orestes Leal Rodriguez <lukes357@...il.com>
> ---
>
> Signed-off-by: Orestes Leal Rodriguez <lukes357@...il.com>
What does this 2nd SoB here?
> diff --git a/lib/string.c b/lib/string.c
> index 992bf30..c873436 100644
> --- a/lib/string.c
> +++ b/lib/string.c
> @@ -17,6 +17,10 @@
> * * Sat Feb 09 2002, Jason Thomas <jason@...ic.com.au>,
> * Matthew Hawkins <matt@...dropbear.id.au>
> * - Kissed strtok() goodbye
> + *
> + * * Tuesday June 16 2015, Orestes Leal Rodriguez <lukes357@...il.com>
> + * - strlen, strnlen: by using a single counter we use less cpu instructions
> + * by avoiding substracting the memory addresses before return
No need to add anything here. These days we have git. :-)
> */
>
> #include <linux/types.h>
> @@ -401,11 +405,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(strim);
> */
> size_t strlen(const char *s)
> {
> - const char *sc;
> + size_t sz = 0;
>
> - for (sc = s; *sc != '\0'; ++sc)
> - /* nothing */;
> - return sc - s;
> + for (; *s++ != '\0'; sz++)
> + /* empty */;
<nitpick>
Why suddenly "empty" instead of "nothing"?
</nitpick>
> + return sz;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(strlen);
> #endif
> @@ -418,12 +422,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(strlen);
> */
> size_t strnlen(const char *s, size_t count)
> {
> - const char *sc;
> + size_t sz = 0;
>
> - for (sc = s; count-- && *sc != '\0'; ++sc)
> - /* nothing */;
> - return sc - s;
> + for (; count-- && *s++ != '\0'; sz++)
> + /* empty */;
Same here.
Thanks,
//R2D2
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists