Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <a9106c37-51d3-be8e-c9c2-4ca279b4523e@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Jul 2022 12:57:52 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] lib/string.c: Optimize memchr()
Content-Language: en-US
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
        'Yu-Jen Chang' <arthurchang09@gmail.com>
Cc:     "andy@kernel.org" <andy@kernel.org>,
        "akinobu.mita@gmail.com" <akinobu.mita@gmail.com>,
        Ching-Chun Huang <jserv@ccns.ncku.edu.tw>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20220710142822.52539-1-arthurchang09@gmail.com>
 <20220710142822.52539-3-arthurchang09@gmail.com>
 <3a1b50d2-a7aa-3e89-56fe-5d14ef9da22f@gmail.com>
 <CAD4RrFPihC+8LScC1RJ5GfOsLs4kze0QwALS1ykNH_m89Z1NGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <48db247e-f6fd-cb4b-7cc5-455bf26bb153@gmail.com>
 <CAD4RrFPfwu4Ascj5tdz8qq2Qgnu5GN2eHjVwMW5AqUa1H7JapA@mail.gmail.com>
 <49a8be9269ee47de9fc2d0d7f09eb0b1@AcuMS.aculab.com>
From:   Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <49a8be9269ee47de9fc2d0d7f09eb0b1@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 7/13/22 12:39, David Laight wrote:
> From: Yu-Jen Chang
>> Sent: 12 July 2022 15:59
> ...
>>> I think you're missing the point. Loads at unaligned addresses may not
>>> be allowed by hardware using conventional load instructions or may be
>>> inefficient. Given that this memchr implementation is used as a fallback
>>> when no hardware-specific version is available, you should be
>>> conservative wrt. hardware capabilities and behavior. You should
>>> probably have a pre-alignment loop.
>>
>> Got it. I add  pre-alignment loop. It aligns the address to 8 or 4bytes.
> 
> That should be predicated on !HAS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS.

If there is a pre-alignment loop, there won't be unaligned loads, so
there shouldn't be the need for the HAS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
check. Unless I misunderstand what HAS_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS indicates.