[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250303124125.4975afdc@pumpkin>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 12:41:25 +0000
From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
To: Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@...il.com>
Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, jk@...abs.org,
joel@....id.au, eajames@...ux.ibm.com, andrzej.hajda@...el.com,
neil.armstrong@...aro.org, rfoss@...nel.org,
maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com, mripard@...nel.org, tzimmermann@...e.de,
airlied@...il.com, simona@...ll.ch, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
mchehab@...nel.org, awalls@...metrocast.net, hverkuil@...all.nl,
miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, richard@....at, vigneshr@...com,
louis.peens@...igine.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
parthiban.veerasooran@...rochip.com, arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com,
johannes@...solutions.net, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
jirislaby@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com,
alistair@...ple.id.au, linux@...musvillemoes.dk,
Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com, jonas@...boo.se,
jernej.skrabec@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsi@...ts.ozlabs.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, oss-drivers@...igine.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
brcm80211@...ts.linux.dev, brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, jserv@...s.ncku.edu.tw,
andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, Yu-Chun Lin <eleanor15x@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/18] lib/parity: Add __builtin_parity() fallback
implementations
On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 10:47:20 +0800
Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2025 at 07:09:54PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 01:29:19 +0800
> > Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Yury,
> > >
...
> > > #define parity(val) \
> > > ({ \
> > > __auto_type __v = (val); \
> > > bool __ret; \
> > > switch (BITS_PER_TYPE(val)) { \
> > > case 64: \
> > > __v ^= __v >> 16 >> 16; \
> > > fallthrough; \
> > > case 32: \
> > > __v ^= __v >> 16; \
> > > fallthrough; \
> > > case 16: \
> > > __v ^= __v >> 8; \
> > > fallthrough; \
> > > case 8: \
> > > __v ^= __v >> 4; \
> > > __ret = (0x6996 >> (__v & 0xf)) & 1; \
> > > break; \
> > > default: \
> > > BUILD_BUG(); \
> > > } \
> > > __ret; \
> > > })
> >
> > I'm seeing double-register shifts for 64bit values on 32bit systems.
> > And gcc is doing 64bit double-register maths all the way down.
> >
> > That is fixed by changing the top of the define to
> > #define parity(val) \
> > ({ \
> > unsigned int __v = (val); \
> > bool __ret; \
> > switch (BITS_PER_TYPE(val)) { \
> > case 64: \
> > __v ^= val >> 16 >> 16; \
> > fallthrough; \
> >
> > But it's need changing to only expand 'val' once.
> > Perhaps:
> > auto_type _val = (val);
> > u32 __ret = val;
> > and (mostly) s/__v/__ret/g
> >
> I'm happy to make this change, though I'm a bit confused about how much
> we care about the code generated by gcc. So this is the macro expected
> in v3:
There is 'good', 'bad' and 'ugly' - it was in the 'bad' to 'ugly' area.
>
> #define parity(val) \
> ({ \
> __auto_type __v = (val); \
> u32 __ret = val; \
> switch (BITS_PER_TYPE(val)) { \
> case 64: \
> __ret ^= __v >> 16 >> 16; \
> fallthrough; \
> case 32: \
> __ret ^= __ret >> 16; \
> fallthrough; \
> case 16: \
> __ret ^= __ret >> 8; \
> fallthrough; \
> case 8: \
> __ret ^= __ret >> 4; \
> __ret = (0x6996 >> (__ret & 0xf)) & 1; \
> break; \
> default: \
> BUILD_BUG(); \
> } \
> __ret; \
> })
That looks like it will avoid double-register shifts on 32bit archs.
arm64 can do slightly better (a couple of instructions) because of its
barrel shifter.
x86 can do a lot better because of the cpu 'parity' flag.
But maybe it is never used anywhere that really matters.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists