Re: [PATCH 2/2] lib/string.c: Optimize memchr()

[Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com>]

On 7/13/22 12:39, David Laight wrote:
> From: Yu-Jen Chang
>> Sent: 12 July 2022 15:59
> ...
>>> I think you're missing the point. Loads at unaligned addresses may not
>>> be allowed by hardware using conventional load instructions or may be
>>> inefficient. Given that this memchr implementation is used as a fallback
>>> when no hardware-specific version is available, you should be
>>> conservative wrt. hardware capabilities and behavior. You should
>>> probably have a pre-alignment loop.
>>
>> Got it. I add  pre-alignment loop. It aligns the address to 8 or 4bytes.
> 
> That should be predicated on !HAS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS.
> 
> ...
>>         for (; p <= end - 8; p += 8) {
>>             val = *(u64*)p ^ mask;
>>             if ((val + 0xfefefefefefefeffull)
>> & (~val & 0x8080808080808080ull))
>>                 break;
> 
> I would add a couple of comments, like:
> 	// Convert to check for zero byte.
> 	// Standard check for a zero byte in a word.
> (But not the big 4 line explanation you had.
> 
> It is also worth looking at how that code compiles
> on 32bit arch that don't have a carry flag.
> That is everything based on MIPS, including riscv.

It may be worth looking at how glibc does it:

https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=string/memchr.c;h=422bcd0cd646ea46711a57fa3cbdb8a3329fc302;hb=refs/heads/release/2.35/master#l46

They do use 32-bit words on 32-bit targets and 64-bit on 64-bit ones. I
think memchr in the kernel should follow this.