From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f182.google.com (mail-pl1-f182.google.com [209.85.214.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5F32126C18; Tue, 25 Feb 2025 14:20:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.182 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740493239; cv=none; b=rWGQCZbhZHBEhIPfKx2VbJKAsipAUlPYhyUYdWZODtizOkAjXK0LVpL4s07DanArzNoJmJGIWXBaMm/sYApxqQxlrlKW0KfEISTWdt/uGJ09gFUw+88hzNjSqQLKRiiUZvB2x1UCN9QCBG9FEpEetKjA9rWOHkNPue68K2wh+FA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740493239; c=relaxed/simple; bh=igL96eUEZrEr7nXbYX4xSAi+Is+y1+sZ4i8SGsdn+rw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=kFX/iqEZGgV018mmTvOmgvjtsxvSjMbo3HLL7wFjFrouNeSLhIMykrUQhgH8Fe5QYCnwSNQpPKQ5DExm0yXeMq2RzURIJafkufKqdsPXyX941X0rDwFIr4GbfvUyUSc1drsRxEZnkp9zPDcUGUeuAm+hF0JYCFjoYjC6dmln82o= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=l32UPZdx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.182 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="l32UPZdx" Received: by mail-pl1-f182.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-220d28c215eso87779015ad.1; Tue, 25 Feb 2025 06:20:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1740493237; x=1741098037; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=pH6kCz8lTpjp3q7JFqjKA+FgBtUVtLCpjnGefR5mF5k=; b=l32UPZdx67KNPYRn63WdCiA5o1RngRRcjta9ekdoM4ODbTaDBwtniCLew39vzy79N8 2vR51cK/kBRvgSBqK/Q1VOalgI08fxRmwyoIlbhGgOFapSocVm6L2PnPU2iRPD/3pdlu Cxi9lyQPkmqN0zYkX0Bao3VqgVTA9nw+O0Wdlg1gM40i8lhg6Cv7M+jIZdhTydLRoY/c eR0Q6HlTyMQXt6NrfVRDBOxbLvcRISpMZX/hPJ51P6Y/Qej+uGIrLrPGJw4e78bgmJ5X 7JmikLePAXGw3RhGd0Qrgt4F2cynzoMjsPLS6tFviuGN7H1bzOc9h5z4owrkyi1Td0KN 1xrg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1740493237; x=1741098037; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=pH6kCz8lTpjp3q7JFqjKA+FgBtUVtLCpjnGefR5mF5k=; b=hkUihvKc6DPrj9NR0Oo+LEeu3YZQ9DqoUD419eMO0H8j1YTDGiPCtp7MpEah0fj2xC Hp8QaMVLjNweCCYSQX8TG+xasOR52rZHhXt0n0g+rpjSRRg+3/xb/KPX26YJKbrYF8Lw VuqUpOUgPk9MqC+ZTotJRdUyxkZZp/4DK5YDWhhqBla1nLBNgTlJ7T8tJr2aB5tVCNWS Equ4yg92WTOmSmlLbDehjqTaGsCN1PHu7iKe4M01kk/TzQgoPKt7oCpoZHVDYlA9hHjD yWj+8dROVDIk6OV7wg8TfZApWpRhyD+BW8HTbqcms/sbbnrAuI/38VQGaYqoOkC7HNn9 vOdg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCU1DIrzUzrhtepBROBkn5gVsBuaHb6fnyJAPsvLMzG5InWDbSFp7ntzMIi7vmQoG5122qg=@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCUGJP75ulyZJeTtkYcthdvw1IGm2TUdKeTmR6tGARwCDS80toPhECx4wAWohgMv8lXwHDamz/LnMX5C6BE=@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCW1G/sRPezlb6Tx0gfsqpzl0QzXfe1bC4xbozwfYY/2pd+uC5ajpfGARIw9+7u8Bv/59CdlNKR4pt7BdOd1b+8=@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCWjdDiTYXviznEV4fPTHiMa4dnjerg6fpDac1cCbXV3Ax0j6HQ4pGtnM/zOJbjsUWGL5rRV8lgc0y1cxZd6@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCX/W1hvsrXueQsd8AANgUvBCgtOgvidLJyQn2KDntm3Th6FwpgcydNd1zPhhMf6lHtiCnkxKH88wV/3Cz6t@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCXMiMod8z4lh0qgjvJf4xQJsHelcf0DHfchUUlAXA5bjgZhxO6jTyfqITSb2wKU/gkQdsmgpyZ1@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCXUvEo7acbk8Iic/OabaEvH0+kARNiuNDb9FQHvXnE1FEgvHd9lEosk8xDAgzGNE6BWwN4jb2yWMGDUwuo=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxkdD8+2F8Vec3/ek29a0PsxsU0tBiCDLDoOp7odiO+vBnc9FMW r51qZXUSCyQe8WJCaSfZtj2yzLRlHzoQ4pdTrQfkQtorFcc9+onq X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvZQFb+bL6wKtMgPk66kQxQwI+PTik994XtBCbO2I/roHMQc6q9w2lSWMOFkm0 gfHuYFphQ5yO5jeHJFzZhxbdSp1/CNaZyUe7yR8Ew5SWdNDjGaLvKtiPBTi8v/zKb32LsofC8zm vF4L6i8dAqQ5W+9FHANwRc1+IrJN1qxe5koou5zhlqF6zz2vKAbmILoGGJV7J6So+nOw/tAfl4M OpmcY1NIrA2F0hAotxyliJYa9FwRR7ResbCuqmCBk2WALsBM9TC+j1N84JN77NdPBA8PZ1GIONu dClQ3GRp3MYeY8HW7ooNX9/NSAgk5yr2eKCadT92ZgXFssvF1YUNpA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IF5xwcyMuEse5d6U24DTrm7La/i/EXLcWUjTbDTBaLHgklr2LYp0Shxn4PZ0SRkVV82FkT4WQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:3392:b0:730:9946:5973 with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-734790a2af5mr5118831b3a.5.1740493236834; Tue, 25 Feb 2025 06:20:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from visitorckw-System-Product-Name ([140.113.216.168]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-7347a72ef60sm1586035b3a.75.2025.02.25.06.20.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 25 Feb 2025 06:20:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 22:20:26 +0800 From: Kuan-Wei Chiu To: Yury Norov Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, 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, hpa@zytor.com, 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/17] bitops: Add generic parity calculation for u64 Message-ID: References: <20250223164217.2139331-1-visitorckw@gmail.com> <20250223164217.2139331-3-visitorckw@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-input@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 09:29:51PM +0800, Kuan-Wei Chiu wrote: > Hi Yury, > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 02:27:03PM -0500, Yury Norov wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 12:42:02AM +0800, Kuan-Wei Chiu wrote: > > > Several parts of the kernel open-code parity calculations using > > > different methods. Add a generic parity64() helper implemented with the > > > same efficient approach as parity8(). > > > > No reason to add parity32() and parity64() in separate patches > > Ack. > > > > > > Co-developed-by: Yu-Chun Lin > > > Signed-off-by: Yu-Chun Lin > > > Signed-off-by: Kuan-Wei Chiu > > > --- > > > include/linux/bitops.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/bitops.h b/include/linux/bitops.h > > > index fb13dedad7aa..67677057f5e2 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/bitops.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/bitops.h > > > @@ -281,6 +281,28 @@ static inline int parity32(u32 val) > > > return (0x6996 >> (val & 0xf)) & 1; > > > } > > > > > > +/** > > > + * parity64 - get the parity of an u64 value > > > + * @value: the value to be examined > > > + * > > > + * Determine the parity of the u64 argument. > > > + * > > > + * Returns: > > > + * 0 for even parity, 1 for odd parity > > > + */ > > > +static inline int parity64(u64 val) > > > +{ > > > + /* > > > + * One explanation of this algorithm: > > > + * https://funloop.org/codex/problem/parity/README.html > > > > This is already referenced in sources. No need to spread it for more. > > Ack. > > > > > > + */ > > > + val ^= val >> 32; > > > + val ^= val >> 16; > > > + val ^= val >> 8; > > > + val ^= val >> 4; > > > + return (0x6996 >> (val & 0xf)) & 1; > > > > It's better to avoid duplicating the same logic again and again. > > Ack. > > > > > > +} > > > + > > > > So maybe make it a macro? > > > > > > From f17a28ae3429f49825d65ebc0f7717c6a191a3e2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Yury Norov > > Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 14:14:27 -0500 > > Subject: [PATCH] bitops: generalize parity8() > > > > The generic parity calculation approach may be easily generalized for > > other standard types. Do that and drop sub-optimal implementation of > > parity calculation in x86 code. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov [NVIDIA] > > --- > > arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c | 14 +----------- > > include/linux/bitops.h | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > > 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c b/arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c > > index 3fed7ae58b60..4a85c69a28f8 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c > > @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ > > /* > > * Implement 'Simple Boot Flag Specification 2.0' > > */ > > +#include > > #include > > #include > > #include > > @@ -20,19 +21,6 @@ > > > > int sbf_port __initdata = -1; /* set via acpi_boot_init() */ > > > > -static int __init parity(u8 v) > > -{ > > - int x = 0; > > - int i; > > - > > - for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) { > > - x ^= (v & 1); > > - v >>= 1; > > - } > > - > > - return x; > > -} > > - > > static void __init sbf_write(u8 v) > > { > > unsigned long flags; > > diff --git a/include/linux/bitops.h b/include/linux/bitops.h > > index c1cb53cf2f0f..29601434f5f4 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/bitops.h > > +++ b/include/linux/bitops.h > > @@ -230,10 +230,10 @@ static inline int get_count_order_long(unsigned long l) > > } > > > > /** > > - * parity8 - get the parity of an u8 value > > + * parity - get the parity of a value > > * @value: the value to be examined > > * > > - * Determine the parity of the u8 argument. > > + * Determine parity of the argument. > > * > > * Returns: > > * 0 for even parity, 1 for odd parity > > @@ -241,24 +241,45 @@ static inline int get_count_order_long(unsigned long l) > > * Note: This function informs you about the current parity. Example to bail > > * out when parity is odd: > > * > > - * if (parity8(val) == 1) > > + * if (parity(val) == 1) > > * return -EBADMSG; > > * > > * If you need to calculate a parity bit, you need to draw the conclusion from > > * this result yourself. Example to enforce odd parity, parity bit is bit 7: > > * > > - * if (parity8(val) == 0) > > + * if (parity(val) == 0) > > * val ^= BIT(7); > > + * > > + * One explanation of this algorithm: > > + * https://funloop.org/codex/problem/parity/README.html > > */ > > -static inline int parity8(u8 val) > > -{ > > - /* > > - * One explanation of this algorithm: > > - * https://funloop.org/codex/problem/parity/README.html > > - */ > > - val ^= val >> 4; > > - return (0x6996 >> (val & 0xf)) & 1; > > -} > > +#define parity(val) \ > > +({ \ > > + u64 __v = (val); \ > > + int __ret; \ > > + switch (BITS_PER_TYPE(val)) { \ > > + case 64: \ > > + __v ^= __v >> 32; \ > > + 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; \ > > +}) > > + > > +#define parity8(val) parity((u8)(val)) > > +#define parity32(val) parity((u32)(val)) > > +#define parity64(val) parity((u64)(val)) > > > What do you think about using these inline functions instead of macros? > Except for parity8(), each function is a single line and follows the > same logic. I find inline functions more readable, and coding-style.rst > also recommends them over macros. > > Regards, > Kuan-Wei > > diff --git a/include/linux/bitops.h b/include/linux/bitops.h > index c1cb53cf2f0f..d518a382f1fe 100644 > --- a/include/linux/bitops.h > +++ b/include/linux/bitops.h > @@ -260,6 +260,26 @@ static inline int parity8(u8 val) > return (0x6996 >> (val & 0xf)) & 1; > } > > +static inline parity16(u16 val) > +{ > + return parity8(val ^ (val >> 8)); > +} > + > +static inline parity16(u16 val) > +{ > + return parity8(val ^ (val >> 8)); > +} > + > +static inline parity32(u32) > +{ > + return parity16(val ^ (val >> 16)); > +} > + > +static inline parity64(u64) > +{ > + return parity32(val ^ (val >> 32)); > +} > + > /** > * __ffs64 - find first set bit in a 64 bit word > * @word: The 64 bit word > > Oops... I made a lot of fat-finger mistakes. Here's the correct one. diff --git a/include/linux/bitops.h b/include/linux/bitops.h index c1cb53cf2f0f..427e4c06055e 100644 --- a/include/linux/bitops.h +++ b/include/linux/bitops.h @@ -260,6 +260,21 @@ static inline int parity8(u8 val) return (0x6996 >> (val & 0xf)) & 1; } +static inline int parity16(u16 val) +{ + return parity8(val ^ (val >> 8)); +} + +static inline int parity32(u32 val) +{ + return parity16(val ^ (val >> 16)); +} + +static inline int parity64(u64 val) +{ + return parity32(val ^ (val >> 32)); +} + /** * __ffs64 - find first set bit in a 64 bit word * @word: The 64 bit word > > /** > > * __ffs64 - find first set bit in a 64 bit word > > -- > > 2.43.0 > >