All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
	Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com>,
	Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] lib/sort: Make swap functions more generic
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 06:30:28 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <dc6cc09e71f8687ff2ef4cbfc2b11accc9aba8aa.1552097842.git.lkml@sdf.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1552097842.git.lkml@sdf.org>

Rather than u32_swap and u64_swap working on 4- and 8-byte objects
directly, let them handle any multiple of 4 or 8 bytes.  This speeds
up most users of sort() by avoiding fallback to the byte copy loop.

Despite what commit ca96ab859ab4 ("lib/sort: Add 64 bit swap function")
claims, very few users of sort() sort pointers (or pointer-sized
objects); most sort structures containing at least two words.
(E.g. drivers/acpi/fan.c:acpi_fan_get_fps() sorts an array of 40-byte
struct acpi_fan_fps.)

x86-64 code size 872 -> 885 bytes (+8)

Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
---
 lib/sort.c | 117 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 96 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/sort.c b/lib/sort.c
index d6b7a202b0b6..dff2ab2e196e 100644
--- a/lib/sort.c
+++ b/lib/sort.c
@@ -11,35 +11,110 @@
 #include <linux/export.h>
 #include <linux/sort.h>
 
-static int alignment_ok(const void *base, int align)
+/**
+ * alignment_ok - is this pointer & size okay for word-wide copying?
+ * @base: pointer to data
+ * @size: size of each element
+ * @align: required aignment (typically 4 or 8)
+ *
+ * Returns true if elements can be copied using word loads and stores.
+ * The size must be a multiple of the alignment, and the base address must
+ * be if we do not have CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS.
+ *
+ * For some reason, gcc doesn't know to optimize "if (a & mask || b & mask)"
+ * to "if ((a | b) & mask)", so we do that by hand.
+ */
+static bool __attribute_const__
+alignment_ok(const void *base, size_t size, unsigned int align)
 {
-	return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS) ||
-		((unsigned long)base & (align - 1)) == 0;
+	unsigned int lsbits = (unsigned int)size;
+#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
+	(void)base;
+#else
+	lsbits |= (unsigned int)(size_t)base;
+#endif
+	lsbits &= align - 1;
+	return lsbits == 0;
 }
 
+/**
+ * u32_swap - swap two elements in 32-bit chunks
+ * @a, @b: pointers to the elements
+ * @size: element size (must be a multiple of 4)
+ *
+ * Exchange the two objects in memory.  This exploits base+index addressing,
+ * which basically all CPUs have, to minimize loop overhead computations.
+ *
+ * For some reason, on x86 gcc 7.3.0 adds a redundant test of n at the
+ * bottom of the loop, even though the zero flag is stil valid from the
+ * subtract (since the intervening mov instructions don't alter the flags).
+ * Gcc 8.1.0 doesn't have that problem.
+ */
 static void u32_swap(void *a, void *b, int size)
 {
-	u32 t = *(u32 *)a;
-	*(u32 *)a = *(u32 *)b;
-	*(u32 *)b = t;
+	size_t n = size;
+
+	do {
+		u32 t = *(u32 *)(a + (n -= 4));
+		*(u32 *)(a + n) = *(u32 *)(b + n);
+		*(u32 *)(b + n) = t;
+	} while (n);
 }
 
+/**
+ * u64_swap - swap two elements in 64-bit chunks
+ * @a, @b: pointers to the elements
+ * @size: element size (must be a multiple of 8)
+ *
+ * Exchange the two objects in memory.  This exploits base+index
+ * addressing, which basically all CPUs have, to minimize loop overhead
+ * computations.
+ *
+ * We'd like to use 64-bit loads if possible.  If they're not, emulating
+ * one requires base+index+4 addressing which x86 has but most other
+ * processors do not.  If CONFIG_64BIT, we definitely have 64-bit loads,
+ * but it's possible to have 64-bit loads without 64-bit pointers (e.g.
+ * x32 ABI).  Are there any cases the kernel needs to worry about?
+ */
+
 static void u64_swap(void *a, void *b, int size)
 {
-	u64 t = *(u64 *)a;
-	*(u64 *)a = *(u64 *)b;
-	*(u64 *)b = t;
-}
-
-static void generic_swap(void *a, void *b, int size)
-{
-	char t;
+	size_t n = size;
 
 	do {
-		t = *(char *)a;
-		*(char *)a++ = *(char *)b;
-		*(char *)b++ = t;
-	} while (--size > 0);
+#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
+		u64 t = *(u64 *)(a + (n -= 8));
+		*(u64 *)(a + n) = *(u64 *)(b + n);
+		*(u64 *)(b + n) = t;
+#else
+		/* Use two 32-bit transfers to avoid base+index+4 addressing */
+		u32 t = *(u32 *)(a + (n -= 4));
+		*(u32 *)(a + n) = *(u32 *)(b + n);
+		*(u32 *)(b + n) = t;
+
+		t = *(u32 *)(a + (n -= 4));
+		*(u32 *)(a + n) = *(u32 *)(b + n);
+		*(u32 *)(b + n) = t;
+#endif
+	} while (n);
+}
+
+/**
+ * generic_swap - swap two elements a byte at a time
+ * @a, @b: pointers to the elements
+ * @size: element size
+ *
+ * This is the fallback if alignment doesn't allow using larger chunks.
+ */
+static void generic_swap(void *a, void *b, int size)
+{
+	size_t n = size;
+
+	do {
+		char t = ((char *)a)[--n];
+		((char *)a)[n] = ((char *)b)[n];
+		((char *)b)[n] = t;
+	} while (n);
 }
 
 /**
@@ -67,10 +142,10 @@ void sort(void *base, size_t num, size_t size,
 	int i = (num/2 - 1) * size, n = num * size, c, r;
 
 	if (!swap_func) {
-		if (size == 4 && alignment_ok(base, 4))
-			swap_func = u32_swap;
-		else if (size == 8 && alignment_ok(base, 8))
+		if (alignment_ok(base, size, 8))
 			swap_func = u64_swap;
+		else if (alignment_ok(base, size, 4))
+			swap_func = u32_swap;
 		else
 			swap_func = generic_swap;
 	}
-- 
2.20.1


  reply	other threads:[~2019-03-09  3:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-03-09  2:17 [PATCH 0/5] lib/sort & lib/list_sort: faster and smaller George Spelvin
2019-02-21  6:30 ` George Spelvin [this message]
     [not found]   ` <20190309140653.GO9224@smile.fi.intel.com>
2019-03-09 15:53     ` [PATCH 1/5] lib/sort: Make swap functions more generic lkml
2019-03-09 20:19       ` Andrey Abramov
2019-03-14  9:29       ` Andy Shevchenko
2019-03-14 10:09         ` George Spelvin
2019-03-14 10:41           ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-03-14 11:53             ` George Spelvin
2019-03-14 12:18               ` Andy Shevchenko
2019-03-14 19:59                 ` Andrey Abramov
2019-03-15  3:35                   ` George Spelvin
2019-03-15  8:27                     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-03-14 10:11         ` George Spelvin
2019-03-09 21:02     ` George Spelvin
2019-03-13 21:23   ` Rasmus Villemoes
2019-03-13 22:02     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-03-13 23:15     ` George Spelvin
2019-02-21  8:21 ` [PATCH 2/5] lib/sort: Use more efficient bottom-up heapsort variant George Spelvin
2019-03-13 22:29   ` Rasmus Villemoes
2019-03-14  0:03     ` George Spelvin
2019-03-14  0:15       ` Rasmus Villemoes
2019-02-21  8:21 ` [PATCH 3/5] lib/sort: Avoid indirect calls to built-in swap George Spelvin
2019-03-05  3:06 ` [PATCH 4/5] lib/list_sort: Simplify and remove MAX_LIST_LENGTH_BITS George Spelvin
2019-03-10 21:54   ` Rasmus Villemoes
2019-03-10 22:29     ` George Spelvin
2019-03-14  9:10   ` Andy Shevchenko
2019-03-14  9:41     ` George Spelvin
2019-03-15  4:33     ` George Spelvin
2019-03-15  8:20       ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-03-15 10:23         ` George Spelvin
2019-03-15 12:57           ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-03-15 16:59             ` George Spelvin
2019-03-15 17:47               ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-03-15 18:53                 ` Andrey Abramov
2019-03-15 19:06                   ` Andy Shevchenko
2019-03-15 19:23                     ` Andrey Abramov
2019-03-15 19:56                       ` Andy Shevchenko
2019-03-16  3:49                         ` George Spelvin
2019-03-05  5:58 ` [PATCH 5/5] lib/list_sort: Optimize number of calls to comparison function George Spelvin
2019-03-13 23:28   ` Rasmus Villemoes
2019-03-14  1:58     ` George Spelvin
2019-06-21 23:12       ` Rasmus Villemoes
2019-12-08  8:01         ` George Spelvin
2019-03-15 19:54 ` [PATCH 0/5] lib/sort & lib/list_sort: faster and smaller Andrey Abramov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=dc6cc09e71f8687ff2ef4cbfc2b11accc9aba8aa.1552097842.git.lkml@sdf.org \
    --to=lkml@sdf.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=daniel.wagner@siemens.com \
    --cc=dchinner@redhat.com \
    --cc=don.mullis@gmail.com \
    --cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk \
    --cc=st5pub@yandex.ru \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.