linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: qla1280: Replace arithmetic addition by bitwise OR

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2302121611010.9268@hadrien>
Date:   Sun, 12 Feb 2023 16:11:58 +0100 (CET)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
To:     Deepak R Varma <drv@...lo.com>
cc:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>, Michael Reed <mdr@....com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Saurabh Singh Sengar <ssengar@...rosoft.com>,
        Praveen Kumar <kumarpraveen@...ux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: qla1280: Replace arithmetic addition by bitwise
 OR



On Sun, 12 Feb 2023, Deepak R Varma wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 03:25:03PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On 2/7/23 03:54, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > > When adding two bit-field mask values, an OR operation offers higher
> > > performance over an arithmetic operation. So, convert such addition to
> > > an OR based expression.
> >
> > Where is the evidence that supports this claim? On the following page I read
> > that there is no performance difference when using a modern CPU: https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/75811/why-is-addition-as-fast-as-bit-wise-operations-in-modern-processors
> >
>
> Hello Bart,
> You are correct. Modern CPU designs have improved addition and the performance
> is at par with the bitwise operation. The document I had read earlier mentioned
> a performance improvement for old CPUs and microprocessors, which today is not
> the case. Thank you for sharing the link.
>
> > > Issue identified using orplus.cocci semantic patch script.
> >
> > Where is that script located? Can it be deleted such that submission of
> > patches similar to this patch stops?
>
> I have added Julia to this email to understand how to best use this semantic
> patch. I already discussed with her on improving the Semantic patch such that it
> doesn't suggest making change when constants are involved.

FWIW, the semantic patch was never motivated by efficiency, but rather
with the goal of making the code more understandable.

julia