Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210615023812.50885-1-mcroce@linux.microsoft.com>
 <20210615023812.50885-2-mcroce@linux.microsoft.com> <6cff2a895db94e6fadd4ddffb8906a73@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <CAEUhbmV+Vi0Ssyzq1B2RTkbjMpE21xjdj2MSKdLydgW6WuCKtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1632006872b04c64be828fa0c4e4eae0@AcuMS.aculab.com> <CAEUhbmU0cPkawmFfDd_sPQnc9V-cfYd32BCQo4Cis3uBKZDpXw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEUhbmU0cPkawmFfDd_sPQnc9V-cfYd32BCQo4Cis3uBKZDpXw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk>
Date:   Tue, 15 Jun 2021 18:12:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CANBLGcxi2mEA5MnV-RL2zFpB2T+OytiHyOLKjOrMXgmAh=fHAw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] riscv: optimized memcpy
To:     Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
Cc:     David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
        Gary Guo <gary@garyguo.net>,
        Matteo Croce <mcroce@linux.microsoft.com>,
        "linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
        Akira Tsukamoto <akira.tsukamoto@gmail.com>,
        Drew Fustini <drew@beagleboard.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 at 15:29, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> Yes, Gary Guo sent one patch long time ago against the broken assembly
> version, but that patch was still not applied as of today.
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-riscv/patch/20210216225555.4976-1-gary@garyguo.net/
>
> I suggest Matteo re-test using Gary's version.

That's a good idea, but if you read the replies to Gary's original patch
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20210216225555.4976-1-gary@garyguo.net/
.. both Gary, Palmer and David would rather like a C-based version.
This is one attempt at providing that.

> > I'm surprised IP_NET_ALIGN isn't set to 2 to try to
> > avoid all these misaligned copies in the network stack.
> > Although avoiding 8n+4 aligned data is rather harder.
> >
> > Misaligned copies are just best avoided - really even on x86.
> > The 'real fun' is when the access crosses TLB boundaries.
>
> Regards,
> Bin