Re: [PATCH 02/17] bitops: Add generic parity calculation for u64

On February 24, 2025 5:34:31 AM PST, David Laight <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 08:09:43 +0100
>Jiri Slaby <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 23. 02. 25, 17:42, Kuan-Wei Chiu wrote:
>> > Several parts of the kernel open-code parity calculations using
>> > different methods. Add a generic parity64() helper implemented with the
>> > same efficient approach as parity8().
>> > 
>> > Co-developed-by: Yu-Chun Lin <[email protected]>
>> > Signed-off-by: Yu-Chun Lin <[email protected]>
>> > Signed-off-by: Kuan-Wei Chiu <[email protected]>
>> > ---
>> >   include/linux/bitops.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >   1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
>> > 
>> > diff --git a/include/linux/bitops.h b/include/linux/bitops.h
>> > index fb13dedad7aa..67677057f5e2 100644
>> > --- a/include/linux/bitops.h
>> > +++ b/include/linux/bitops.h
>> > @@ -281,6 +281,28 @@ static inline int parity32(u32 val)
>> >   	return (0x6996 >> (val & 0xf)) & 1;
>> >   }
>> >   
>> > +/**
>> > + * parity64 - get the parity of an u64 value
>> > + * @value: the value to be examined
>> > + *
>> > + * Determine the parity of the u64 argument.
>> > + *
>> > + * Returns:
>> > + * 0 for even parity, 1 for odd parity
>> > + */
>> > +static inline int parity64(u64 val)
>> > +{
>> > +	/*
>> > +	 * One explanation of this algorithm:
>> > +	 * https://funloop.org/codex/problem/parity/README.html
>> > +	 */
>> > +	val ^= val >> 32;  
>> 
>> Do we need all these implementations? Can't we simply use parity64() for 
>> any 8, 16 and 32-bit values too? I.e. have one parity().
>
>I'm not sure you can guarantee that the compiler will optimise away
>the unnecessary operations.
>
>But:
>static inline int parity64(u64 val)
>{
>	return parity32(val ^ (val >> 32))
>}
>
>should be ok.
>It will also work on x86-32 where parity32() can just check the parity flag.
>Although you are unlikely to manage to use the the PF the xor sets.
>
>	David
>
>> 
>> > +	val ^= val >> 16;
>> > +	val ^= val >> 8;
>> > +	val ^= val >> 4;
>> > +	return (0x6996 >> (val & 0xf)) & 1;
>> > +}
>> > +
>> >   /**
>> >    * __ffs64 - find first set bit in a 64 bit word
>> >    * @word: The 64 bit word  
>> 
>> 
>

Sure you can; you do need an 8- and a 16-bit arch implementation though (the 16 bit one being xor %rh,%rl)