Re: [PATCH] riscv: use the generic string routines
From: Matteo Croce
Date: Thu Aug 05 2021 - 06:31:43 EST
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.
--
per aspera ad upstream