From: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>
To: Milan Tripkovic <milant2002@gmail.com>
Cc: Paul Walmsley <pjw@kernel.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
Alexandre Ghiti <alex@ghiti.fr>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers+lkml@gmail.com>,
Bill Wendling <morbo@google.com>,
Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
Dusan Stojkovic <Dusan.Stojkovic@rt-rk.com>,
Milan Tripkovic <Milan.Tripkovic@rt-rk.com>,
kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] lib/string_kunit: extend benchmarks and unit test to memcmp()
Date: Thu, 14 May 2026 09:19:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202605140916.09FBB1A4@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260514121359.931999-3-milant2002@gmail.com>
On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 02:13:58PM +0200, Milan Tripkovic wrote:
> From: Milan Tripkovic <Milan.Tripkovic@rt-rk.com>
>
> Extend the string benchmarking suite to include memcmp().
> Extend the string unit test to include memcmp().
>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202605140827.Qg1DZpcB-lkp@intel.com/
> Signed-off-by: Milan Tripkovic <Milan.Tripkovic@rt-rk.com>
> ---
> lib/tests/string_kunit.c | 106 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 106 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/tests/string_kunit.c b/lib/tests/string_kunit.c
> index 0819ace5b027..d0bad40a719a 100644
> --- a/lib/tests/string_kunit.c
> +++ b/lib/tests/string_kunit.c
> @@ -881,6 +881,110 @@ static void string_bench_strrchr(struct kunit *test)
> STRING_BENCH_BUF(test, buf, len, strrchr, buf, '\0');
> }
>
> +static void string_test_memcmp(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + const int max_offset = 16;
> + const int max_len = 32;
> + const int buf_size = max_offset + max_len + 32;
> + u8 *buf1, *buf2;
> + int i, j, len, k;
> +
> + buf1 = kunit_kzalloc(test, buf_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> + buf2 = kunit_kzalloc(test, buf_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, buf1);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, buf2);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < max_offset; i++) {
> + for (j = 0; j < max_offset; j++) {
> + for (len = 0; len <= max_len; len++) {
> + memset(buf1, 'A', buf_size);
> + memset(buf2, 'A', buf_size);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, memcmp(buf1 + i, buf2 + j, len), 0,
> + "Should be equal: i:%d j:%d len:%d", i, j, len);
> + for (k = 0; k < len; k++) {
> + memset(buf1, 'A', buf_size);
> + memset(buf2, 'A', buf_size);
> + buf2[j + k] = 'B';
> + int res = memcmp(buf1 + i, buf2 + j, len);
> +
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_NE_MSG(test, res, 0,
> + "Should detect difference at k:%d (i:%d j:%d len:%d)",
> + k, i, j, len);
> +
> + if (buf1[i + k] < buf2[j + k])
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_LT(test, res, 0);
> + else
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, res, 0);
> + }
> + }
> + }
> + }
> +}
This looks good, thanks!
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_STRING_KUNIT_BENCH)
> +static void string_bench_memcmp(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + char *buf1, *buf2;
> + size_t lengths[] = { 1, 7, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 512, 1024, 4096};
> + int offsets[] = {0, 1, 3, 7};
> + const size_t max_len = 4096 + 64;
I think I'd prefer, instead of a ifdef stub, to do:
if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_STRING_KUNIT_BENCH))
kunit_skip(test, "CONFIG_STRING_KUNIT_BENCH not enabled")
here.
> +
> + buf1 = vmalloc(max_len);
> + buf2 = vmalloc(max_len);
> +
> + if (!buf1 || !buf2) {
> + vfree(buf1);
> + vfree(buf2);
> + kunit_err(test, "vmalloc failed\n");
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + memset(buf1, 'A', max_len);
> + memset(buf2, 'A', max_len);
> +
> + for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
> + (void)memcmp(buf1, buf2, 4096);
> +
> + for (int o = 0; o < ARRAY_SIZE(offsets); o++) {
> + int off = offsets[o];
> +
> + for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(lengths); i++) {
> + size_t len = lengths[i];
> + char *p1 = buf1;
> + char *p2 = buf2 + off;
> +
> + u32 iterations = (len < 512) ? 100000 : 10000;
> +
> + for (u32 j = 0; j < iterations; j++) {
> + (void)memcmp(p1, p2, len);
> + barrier();
> + }
> +
> + u64 elapsed = STRING_BENCH(iterations, memcmp, p1, p2, len);
> + u64 ns_per_call = div_u64(elapsed, iterations);
> + u64 mbps = len ? div_u64((u64)len * iterations * 1000,
> + elapsed) : 0;
> +
> + if (off == 0) {
> + kunit_info(test, "bench_memcmp_aligned: len=%-4zu: %llu MB/s (%llu ns/call)\n",
> + len, mbps, ns_per_call);
> + } else {
> + kunit_info(test, "bench_memcmp_unaligned(off=%d): len=%-4zu: %llu MB/s (%llu ns/call)\n",
> + off, len, mbps, ns_per_call);
> + }
> + }
> + }
> +
> + vfree(buf1);
> + vfree(buf2);
> +}
> +#else
> +static void string_bench_memcmp(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + kunit_skip(test, "not enabled");
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> static struct kunit_case string_test_cases[] = {
> KUNIT_CASE(string_test_memset16),
> KUNIT_CASE(string_test_memset32),
> @@ -910,6 +1014,8 @@ static struct kunit_case string_test_cases[] = {
> KUNIT_CASE(string_bench_strnlen),
> KUNIT_CASE(string_bench_strchr),
> KUNIT_CASE(string_bench_strrchr),
> + KUNIT_CASE(string_test_memcmp),
> + KUNIT_CASE_SLOW(string_bench_memcmp),
> {}
> };
>
> --
> 2.43.0
>
--
Kees Cook
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-14 16:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-14 12:13 [PATCH v2 0/2] riscv: lib: add optimized memcmp() and extend KUnit tests Milan Tripkovic
2026-05-14 12:13 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] riscv: lib: add memcmp() implementation Milan Tripkovic
2026-05-14 12:13 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] lib/string_kunit: extend benchmarks and unit test to memcmp() Milan Tripkovic
2026-05-14 16:19 ` Kees Cook [this message]
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=202605140916.09FBB1A4@keescook \
--to=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=Dusan.Stojkovic@rt-rk.com \
--cc=Milan.Tripkovic@rt-rk.com \
--cc=alex@ghiti.fr \
--cc=andy@kernel.org \
--cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=justinstitt@google.com \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=milant2002@gmail.com \
--cc=morbo@google.com \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=nick.desaulniers+lkml@gmail.com \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=pjw@kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox