diff --git a/lib/sort.c b/lib/sort.c index d6b7a202b0b64..ec79eac85e21f 100644 --- a/lib/sort.c +++ b/lib/sort.c @@ -11,35 +11,108 @@ #include #include -static int alignment_ok(const void *base, int align) +/** + * is_aligned - is this pointer & size okay for word-wide copying? + * @base: pointer to data + * @size: size of each element + * @align: required aignment (typically 4 or 8) + * + * Returns true if elements can be copied using word loads and stores. + * The size must be a multiple of the alignment, and the base address must + * be if we do not have CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS. + * + * For some reason, gcc doesn't know to optimize "if (a & mask || b & mask)" + * to "if ((a | b) & mask)", so we do that by hand. + */ +__attribute_const__ __always_inline +static bool is_aligned(const void *base, size_t size, unsigned char align) { - return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS) || - ((unsigned long)base & (align - 1)) == 0; + unsigned char lsbits = (unsigned char)size; + + (void)base; +#ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS + lsbits |= (unsigned char)(uintptr_t)base; +#endif + return (lsbits & (align - 1)) == 0; } -static void u32_swap(void *a, void *b, int size) +/** + * swap_words_32 - swap two elements in 32-bit chunks + * @a, @b: pointers to the elements + * @size: element size (must be a multiple of 4) + * + * Exchange the two objects in memory. This exploits base+index addressing, + * which basically all CPUs have, to minimize loop overhead computations. + * + * For some reason, on x86 gcc 7.3.0 adds a redundant test of n at the + * bottom of the loop, even though the zero flag is stil valid from the + * subtract (since the intervening mov instructions don't alter the flags). + * Gcc 8.1.0 doesn't have that problem. + */ +static void swap_words_32(void *a, void *b, int size) { - u32 t = *(u32 *)a; - *(u32 *)a = *(u32 *)b; - *(u32 *)b = t; + size_t n = (unsigned int)size; + + do { + u32 t = *(u32 *)(a + (n -= 4)); + *(u32 *)(a + n) = *(u32 *)(b + n); + *(u32 *)(b + n) = t; + } while (n); } -static void u64_swap(void *a, void *b, int size) +/** + * swap_words_64 - swap two elements in 64-bit chunks + * @a, @b: pointers to the elements + * @size: element size (must be a multiple of 8) + * + * Exchange the two objects in memory. This exploits base+index + * addressing, which basically all CPUs have, to minimize loop overhead + * computations. + * + * We'd like to use 64-bit loads if possible. If they're not, emulating + * one requires base+index+4 addressing which x86 has but most other + * processors do not. If CONFIG_64BIT, we definitely have 64-bit loads, + * but it's possible to have 64-bit loads without 64-bit pointers (e.g. + * x32 ABI). Are there any cases the kernel needs to worry about? + */ +static void swap_words_64(void *a, void *b, int size) { - u64 t = *(u64 *)a; - *(u64 *)a = *(u64 *)b; - *(u64 *)b = t; + size_t n = (unsigned int)size; + + do { +#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT + u64 t = *(u64 *)(a + (n -= 8)); + *(u64 *)(a + n) = *(u64 *)(b + n); + *(u64 *)(b + n) = t; +#else + /* Use two 32-bit transfers to avoid base+index+4 addressing */ + u32 t = *(u32 *)(a + (n -= 4)); + *(u32 *)(a + n) = *(u32 *)(b + n); + *(u32 *)(b + n) = t; + + t = *(u32 *)(a + (n -= 4)); + *(u32 *)(a + n) = *(u32 *)(b + n); + *(u32 *)(b + n) = t; +#endif + } while (n); } -static void generic_swap(void *a, void *b, int size) +/** + * swap_bytes - swap two elements a byte at a time + * @a, @b: pointers to the elements + * @size: element size + * + * This is the fallback if alignment doesn't allow using larger chunks. + */ +static void swap_bytes(void *a, void *b, int size) { - char t; + size_t n = (unsigned int)size; do { - t = *(char *)a; - *(char *)a++ = *(char *)b; - *(char *)b++ = t; - } while (--size > 0); + char t = ((char *)a)[--n]; + ((char *)a)[n] = ((char *)b)[n]; + ((char *)b)[n] = t; + } while (n); } /** @@ -50,8 +123,10 @@ static void generic_swap(void *a, void *b, int size) * @cmp_func: pointer to comparison function * @swap_func: pointer to swap function or NULL * - * This function does a heapsort on the given array. You may provide a - * swap_func function optimized to your element type. + * This function does a heapsort on the given array. You may provide + * a swap_func function if you need to do something more than a memory + * copy (e.g. fix up pointers or auxiliary data), but the built-in swap + * isn't usually a bottleneck. * * Sorting time is O(n log n) both on average and worst-case. While * qsort is about 20% faster on average, it suffers from exploitable @@ -67,12 +142,12 @@ void sort(void *base, size_t num, size_t size, int i = (num/2 - 1) * size, n = num * size, c, r; if (!swap_func) { - if (size == 4 && alignment_ok(base, 4)) - swap_func = u32_swap; - else if (size == 8 && alignment_ok(base, 8)) - swap_func = u64_swap; + if (is_aligned(base, size, 8)) + swap_func = swap_words_64; + else if (is_aligned(base, size, 4)) + swap_func = swap_words_32; else - swap_func = generic_swap; + swap_func = swap_bytes; } /* heapify */