linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/4] bitops: Add single_bit

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:   Tue, 23 Nov 2021 10:58:44 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Andy Shevchenko' <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     "'Vaittinen, Matti'" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
        Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Kosina <trivial@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
        "Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi" <memxor@...il.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/4] bitops: Add single_bit_set()

From: Andy Shevchenko
> Sent: 23 November 2021 10:48
> 
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 10:42:45AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Vaittinen, Matti
> > > Sent: 22 November 2021 13:19
> > >
> > > On 11/22/21 14:57, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 12:42:21PM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> > > >> On 11/22/21 13:28, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > >>> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 01:03:25PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What do you mean by this?
> > > >
> > > > hweight() will return you the number of the non-zero elements in the set.
> > >
> > > Exactly. The function I added did only check if given set of bits had
> > > only one bit set.
> >
> > Checking for exactly one bit can use the (x & (x - 1)) check on
> > non-zero values - which may even be better on some cpus with a
> > popcnt instruction.
> 
> In the discussed case the value pretty much can be 0, meaning you have
> to add an additional test which I believe diminishes all efforts for
> the is_power_of_2() call.

I wouldn't have thought so.
Code would be:
	if (!scan_for_non_zero())
		return 0;
	if (!is_power_of_2())
		return 0;
	return scan_for_non_zero() ? 0 : 1;

Hand-crafting asm you'd actually check for (x - 1) generating
carry in the initial scan.

The latency of popcnt it worse than arithmetic on a lot of x86 cpu.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)