On Thu, 05 Aug 2021 03:31:04 PDT (-0700), mcroce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 10:40 PM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Aug 2021 09:54:34 PDT (-0700), mcroce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 1:44 PM Matteo Croce <mcroce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> From: Matteo Croce <mcroce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Use the generic routines which handle alignment properly.
>>
>> These are the performances measured on a BeagleV machine for a
>> 32 mbyte buffer:
>>
>> memcpy:
>> original aligned: 75 Mb/s
>> original unaligned: 75 Mb/s
>> new aligned: 114 Mb/s
>> new unaligned: 107 Mb/s
>>
>> memset:
>> original aligned: 140 Mb/s
>> original unaligned: 140 Mb/s
>> new aligned: 241 Mb/s
>> new unaligned: 241 Mb/s
>>
>> TCP throughput with iperf3 gives a similar improvement as well.
>>
>> This is the binary size increase according to bloat-o-meter:
>>
>> add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 4/2 up/down: 432/-36 (396)
>> Function old new delta
>> memcpy 36 324 +288
>> memset 32 148 +116
>> strlcpy 116 132 +16
>> strscpy_pad 84 96 +12
>> strlcat 176 164 -12
>> memmove 76 52 -24
>> Total: Before=1225371, After=1225767, chg +0.03%
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Matteo Croce <mcroce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@xxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>
> Hi,
>
> can someone have a look at this change and share opinions?
This LGTM. How are the generic string routines landing? I'm happy to
take this into my for-next, but IIUC we need the optimized generic
versions first so we don't have a performance regression falling back to
the trivial ones for a bit. Is there a shared tag I can pull in?
Hi,
I see them only in linux-next by now.
These ended up getting rejected by Linus, so I'm going to hold off on
this for now. If they're really out of lib/ then I'll take the C
routines in arch/riscv, but either way it's an issue for the next
release.
