Re: [PATCH 03/17] x86: Replace open-coded parity calculation with parity8()

On February 24, 2025 2:08:05 PM PST, Uros Bizjak [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 10:56 PM H. Peter Anvin [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 2/24/25 07:24, Uros Bizjak wrote:

quoted

On 23. 02. 25 17:42, Kuan-Wei Chiu wrote:

quoted

Refactor parity calculations to use the standard parity8() helper. This
change eliminates redundant implementations and improves code
efficiency.

The patch improves parity assembly code in bootflag.o from:

   58:    89 de                    mov    %ebx,%esi
   5a:    b9 08 00 00 00           mov    $0x8,%ecx
   5f:    31 d2                    xor    %edx,%edx
   61:    89 f0                    mov    %esi,%eax
   63:    89 d7                    mov    %edx,%edi
   65:    40 d0 ee                 shr    %sil
   68:    83 e0 01                 and    $0x1,%eax
   6b:    31 c2                    xor    %eax,%edx
   6d:    83 e9 01                 sub    $0x1,%ecx
   70:    75 ef                    jne    61 <sbf_init+0x51>
   72:    39 c7                    cmp    %eax,%edi
   74:    74 7f                    je     f5 <sbf_init+0xe5>
   76:

to:

   54:    89 d8                    mov    %ebx,%eax
   56:    ba 96 69 00 00           mov    $0x6996,%edx
   5b:    c0 e8 04                 shr    $0x4,%al
   5e:    31 d8                    xor    %ebx,%eax
   60:    83 e0 0f                 and    $0xf,%eax
   63:    0f a3 c2                 bt     %eax,%edx
   66:    73 64                    jae    cc <sbf_init+0xbc>
   68:

which is faster and smaller (-10 bytes) code.

Of course, on x86, parity8() and parity16() can be implemented very simply:

(Also, the parity functions really ought to return bool, and be flagged
__attribute_const__.)

static inline __attribute_const__ bool _arch_parity8(u8 val)
{
        bool parity;
        asm("and %0,%0" : "=@ccnp" (parity) : "q" (val));

asm("test %0,%0" : "=@ccnp" (parity) : "q" (val));

because we are interested only in flags.

Uros.

Same thing, really, but yes, using test is cleaner.