On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 1:35 PM David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
> > Agree, we should take the C routine in arch/riscv for common
> > implementation. If any vendor what custom implementation they could
> > use the alternative framework in errata for string operations.
>
> I though the asm ones were significantly faster because
> they were less affected by read latency.
>
> (But they were horribly broken for misaligned transfers.)
>
I can get the same exact performance (and a very similar machine code)
in C with this on top of the C memset implementation:
--- a/arch/riscv/lib/string.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/lib/string.c
@@ -112,9 +112,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__memmove);
void *memmove(void *dest, const void *src, size_t count) __weak
__alias(__memmove);
EXPORT_SYMBOL(memmove);
+#define BATCH 4
+
void *__memset(void *s, int c, size_t count)
{
union types dest = { .as_u8 = s };
+ int i;
if (count >= MIN_THRESHOLD) {
unsigned long cu = (unsigned long)c;
@@ -138,8 +141,12 @@ void *__memset(void *s, int c, size_t count)
}
/* Copy using the largest size allowed */
- for (; count >= BYTES_LONG; count -= BYTES_LONG)
- *dest.as_ulong++ = cu;
+ for (; count >= BYTES_LONG * BATCH; count -= BYTES_LONG * BATCH) {
+#pragma GCC unroll 4
+ for (i = 0; i < BATCH; i++)
+ dest.as_ulong[i] = cu;
+ dest.as_ulong += BATCH;
+ }
}
On the BeagleV the memset speed with the different batch size are:
1 (stock): 267 Mb/s
2: 272 Mb/s
4: 276 Mb/s
8: 276 Mb/s
The problem with biggest batch size is that it will fallback to a
single byte copy if the buffers are too small.
Regards,
--
per aspera ad upstream
