Re: [PATCH 03/17] x86: Replace open-coded parity calculation with parity8()

From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>,
	Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@gmail.com>,
	tglx@linutronix.de, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org,
	jk@ozlabs.org, joel@jms.id.au, eajames@linux.ibm.com,
	andrzej.hajda@intel.com, neil.armstrong@linaro.org,
	rfoss@kernel.org, maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com,
	mripard@kernel.org, tzimmermann@suse.de, airlied@gmail.com,
	simona@ffwll.ch, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, mchehab@kernel.org,
	awalls@md.metrocast.net, hverkuil@xs4all.nl,
	miquel.raynal@bootlin.com, richard@nod.at, vigneshr@ti.com,
	louis.peens@corigine.com, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch,
	davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com,
	parthiban.veerasooran@microchip.com,
	arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com, johannes@sipsolutions.net,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, jirislaby@kernel.org,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@kernel.org,
	alistair@popple.id.au, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk,
	Laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com, jonas@kwiboo.se,
	jernej.skrabec@gmail.com, kuba@kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsi@lists.ozlabs.org,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
	oss-drivers@corigine.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, brcm80211@lists.linux.dev,
	brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@broadcom.com,
	linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
	jserv@ccns.ncku.edu.tw, Yu-Chun Lin <eleanor15x@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/17] x86: Replace open-coded parity calculation with parity8()
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 17:30:08 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z7zy8AOpAo4JQu8W@thinkpad> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <68F1ED19-B0C2-4E78-B504-2F7C040ACC0A@zytor.com>

On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 02:21:13PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On February 24, 2025 2:17:29 PM PST, Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 01:55:28PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> On 2/24/25 07:24, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > On 23. 02. 25 17:42, Kuan-Wei Chiu wrote:
> >> > > Refactor parity calculations to use the standard parity8() helper. This
> >> > > change eliminates redundant implementations and improves code
> >> > > efficiency.
> >> > 
> >> > The patch improves parity assembly code in bootflag.o from:
> >> > 
> >> >    58:    89 de                    mov    %ebx,%esi
> >> >    5a:    b9 08 00 00 00           mov    $0x8,%ecx
> >> >    5f:    31 d2                    xor    %edx,%edx
> >> >    61:    89 f0                    mov    %esi,%eax
> >> >    63:    89 d7                    mov    %edx,%edi
> >> >    65:    40 d0 ee                 shr    %sil
> >> >    68:    83 e0 01                 and    $0x1,%eax
> >> >    6b:    31 c2                    xor    %eax,%edx
> >> >    6d:    83 e9 01                 sub    $0x1,%ecx
> >> >    70:    75 ef                    jne    61 <sbf_init+0x51>
> >> >    72:    39 c7                    cmp    %eax,%edi
> >> >    74:    74 7f                    je     f5 <sbf_init+0xe5>
> >> >    76:
> >> > 
> >> > to:
> >> > 
> >> >    54:    89 d8                    mov    %ebx,%eax
> >> >    56:    ba 96 69 00 00           mov    $0x6996,%edx
> >> >    5b:    c0 e8 04                 shr    $0x4,%al
> >> >    5e:    31 d8                    xor    %ebx,%eax
> >> >    60:    83 e0 0f                 and    $0xf,%eax
> >> >    63:    0f a3 c2                 bt     %eax,%edx
> >> >    66:    73 64                    jae    cc <sbf_init+0xbc>
> >> >    68:
> >> > 
> >> > which is faster and smaller (-10 bytes) code.
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> Of course, on x86, parity8() and parity16() can be implemented very simply:
> >> 
> >> (Also, the parity functions really ought to return bool, and be flagged
> >> __attribute_const__.)
> >
> >There was a discussion regarding return type when parity8() was added.
> >The integer type was taken over bool with a sort of consideration that
> >bool should be returned as an answer to some question, like parity_odd().
> >
> >To me it's not a big deal. We can switch to boolean and describe in
> >comment what the 'true' means for the parity() function.
> 
> Bool is really the single-bit type, and gives the compiler more information. You could argue that the function really should be called parity_odd*() in general, but that's kind of excessive IMO.

Yes, I could, but I will not. :) I also feel like bool looks more
natural here.