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  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, 4 Dec 2020 10:36:19 +0900
From:   Yun Levi <ppbuk5246@...il.com>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:     Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, dushistov@...l.ru,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>,
        richard.weiyang@...ux.alibaba.com, joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com,
        skalluru@...vell.com, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re:

>On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 3:53 AM Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:46:25AM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> > Yun, could you please stop top-posting and excessive trimming in the thread?
>
> And re-configure the mail agent to make the "Subject" field appear and
> fill it.

>On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:46:25AM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> Yun, could you please stop top-posting and excessive trimming in the thread?
Sorry to make you uncomfortable... Thanks for advice.

>On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:46:25AM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> As you said, find_last_bit() and proposed find_prev_*_bit() have the
> same functionality.
> If you really want to have find_prev_*_bit(), could you please at
> least write it using find_last_bit(), otherwise it would be just a
> blottering.

Actually find_prev_*_bit call _find_prev_bit which is a common helper function
like _find_next_bit.
As you know this function is required to support __BIGEDIAN's little
endian search.
find_prev_bit actually wrapper of _find_prev_bit which have a feature
the find_last_bit.

That makes the semantics difference between find_last_bit and find_prev_bit.
-- specify where you find from and
   In loop, find_last_bit couldn't sustain original size as sentinel
return value
    (we should change the size argument for next searching
     But it means whenever we call, "NOT SET or NOT CLEAR"'s sentinel
return value is changed per call).

Because we should have _find_prev_bit,
I think it's the matter to choose which is better to usein
find_prev_bit (find_last_bit? or _find_prev_bit?)
sustaining find_prev_bit feature (give size as sentinel return, from
where I start).
if my understanding is correct.

In my view, I prefer to use _find_prev_bit like find_next_bit for
integrated format.

But In some of the benchmarking, find_last_bit is better than _find_prev_bit,
here what I tested (look similar but sometimes have some difference).

              Start testing find_bit() with random-filled bitmap
[  +0.001850] find_next_bit:                  842792 ns, 163788 iterations
[  +0.000873] find_prev_bit:                  870914 ns, 163788 iterations
[  +0.000824] find_next_zero_bit:             821959 ns, 163894 iterations
[  +0.000677] find_prev_zero_bit:             676240 ns, 163894 iterations
[  +0.000777] find_last_bit:                  659103 ns, 163788 iterations
[  +0.001822] find_first_bit:                1708041 ns,  16250 iterations
[  +0.000539] find_next_and_bit:              492182 ns,  73871 iterations
[  +0.000001]
              Start testing find_bit() with sparse bitmap
[  +0.000222] find_next_bit:                   13227 ns,    654 iterations
[  +0.000013] find_prev_bit:                   11652 ns,    654 iterations
[  +0.001845] find_next_zero_bit:            1723869 ns, 327028 iterations
[  +0.001538] find_prev_zero_bit:            1355808 ns, 327028 iterations
[  +0.000010] find_last_bit:                    8114 ns,    654 iterations
[  +0.000867] find_first_bit:                 710639 ns,    654 iterations
[  +0.000006] find_next_and_bit:                4273 ns,      1 iterations
[  +0.000004] find_next_and_bit:                3278 ns,      1 iterations

              Start testing find_bit() with random-filled bitmap
[  +0.001784] find_next_bit:                  805553 ns, 164240 iterations
[  +0.000643] find_prev_bit:                  632474 ns, 164240 iterations
[  +0.000950] find_next_zero_bit:             877215 ns, 163442 iterations
[  +0.000664] find_prev_zero_bit:             662339 ns, 163442 iterations
[  +0.000680] find_last_bit:                  602204 ns, 164240 iterations
[  +0.001912] find_first_bit:                1758208 ns,  16408 iterations
[  +0.000760] find_next_and_bit:              531033 ns,  73798 iterations
[  +0.000002]
              Start testing find_bit() with sparse bitmap
[  +0.000203] find_next_bit:                   12468 ns,    656 iterations
[  +0.000205] find_prev_bit:                   10948 ns,    656 iterations
[  +0.001759] find_next_zero_bit:            1579447 ns, 327026 iterations
[  +0.001935] find_prev_zero_bit:            1931961 ns, 327026 iterations
[  +0.000013] find_last_bit:                    9543 ns,    656 iterations
[  +0.000732] find_first_bit:                 562009 ns,    656 iterations
[  +0.000217] find_next_and_bit:                6804 ns,      1 iterations
[  +0.000007] find_next_and_bit:                4367 ns,      1 iterations

Is it better to write find_prev_bit using find_last_bit?
I question again.

Thanks for your great advice, But please forgive my fault and lackness.

HTH.
Levi.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists