[PATCH] lib/checksum.c: optimize do_csum a bit

Reduce the number of variables modified by the loop in do_csum() by 1,
which seems like a good idea.  On Nios II (a RISC CPU with 3-operand
instruction set) it reduces the loop from 7 to 6 instructions, including
the conditional branch.

Signed-off-by: Ian Abbott <abbotti@mev.co.uk>
---
 lib/checksum.c |   13 +++++--------
 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/checksum.c b/lib/checksum.c
index 0975087..8df2f91 100644
--- a/lib/checksum.c
+++ b/lib/checksum.c

@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static inline unsigned short from32to16(unsigned int x)
 
 static unsigned int do_csum(const unsigned char *buff, int len)
 {
-	int odd, count;
+	int odd;
 	unsigned int result = 0;
 
 	if (len <= 0)

@@ -64,25 +64,22 @@ static unsigned int do_csum(const unsigned char *buff, int len)
 		len--;
 		buff++;
 	}
-	count = len >> 1;		/* nr of 16-bit words.. */
-	if (count) {
+	if (len >= 2) {
 		if (2 & (unsigned long) buff) {
 			result += *(unsigned short *) buff;
-			count--;
 			len -= 2;
 			buff += 2;
 		}
-		count >>= 1;		/* nr of 32-bit words.. */
-		if (count) {
+		if (len >= 4) {
+			const unsigned char *end = buff + ((unsigned)len & ~3);
 			unsigned int carry = 0;
 			do {
 				unsigned int w = *(unsigned int *) buff;
-				count--;
 				buff += 4;
 				result += carry;
 				result += w;
 				carry = (w > result);
-			} while (count);
+			} while (buff < end);
 			result += carry;
 			result = (result & 0xffff) + (result >> 16);
 		}

-- 
1.7.6

From: Ian Abbott <abbotti@mev.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 12:18:49 +0100

Reduce the number of variables modified by the loop in do_csum() by 1,
which seems like a good idea.  On Nios II (a RISC CPU with 3-operand
instruction set) it reduces the loop from 7 to 6 instructions, including
the conditional branch.

Signed-off-by: Ian Abbott <abbotti@mev.co.uk>

I think you'll overshoot past the end of the buffer when there are
trailing bytes to handle.

The whole reason we need the count variable is to handle those
kinds of cases.

On 07/07/11 12:29, David Miller wrote:

From: Ian Abbott <abbotti@mev.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 12:18:49 +0100

quoted

Reduce the number of variables modified by the loop in do_csum() by 1,
which seems like a good idea.  On Nios II (a RISC CPU with 3-operand
instruction set) it reduces the loop from 7 to 6 instructions, including
the conditional branch.

Signed-off-by: Ian Abbott <abbotti@mev.co.uk>

I think you'll overshoot past the end of the buffer when there are
trailing bytes to handle.

The whole reason we need the count variable is to handle those
kinds of cases.

I don't think it does.  That's what the & ~3 was for.

-- 
-=( Ian Abbott @ MEV Ltd.    E-mail: [off-list ref]        )=-
-=( Tel: +44 (0)161 477 1898   FAX: +44 (0)161 718 3587         )=-

From: Ian Abbott <abbotti@mev.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 12:32:45 +0100

On 07/07/11 12:29, David Miller wrote:

quoted

From: Ian Abbott <abbotti@mev.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 12:18:49 +0100

quoted

Reduce the number of variables modified by the loop in do_csum() by 1,
which seems like a good idea.  On Nios II (a RISC CPU with 3-operand
instruction set) it reduces the loop from 7 to 6 instructions, including
the conditional branch.

Signed-off-by: Ian Abbott <abbotti@mev.co.uk>

I think you'll overshoot past the end of the buffer when there are
trailing bytes to handle.

The whole reason we need the count variable is to handle those
kinds of cases.

I don't think it does.  That's what the & ~3 was for.

Aha, yes that indeed makes it work.

From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 04:36:25 -0700 (PDT)

From: Ian Abbott <abbotti@mev.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 12:32:45 +0100

quoted

On 07/07/11 12:29, David Miller wrote:

quoted

From: Ian Abbott <abbotti@mev.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 12:18:49 +0100

quoted

Reduce the number of variables modified by the loop in do_csum() by 1,
which seems like a good idea.  On Nios II (a RISC CPU with 3-operand
instruction set) it reduces the loop from 7 to 6 instructions, including
the conditional branch.

Signed-off-by: Ian Abbott <abbotti@mev.co.uk>

I think you'll overshoot past the end of the buffer when there are
trailing bytes to handle.

The whole reason we need the count variable is to handle those
kinds of cases.

I don't think it does.  That's what the & ~3 was for.

Aha, yes that indeed makes it work.

I've applied this to net-next-2.6, thanks.