[PATCH v2 00/12] lib/crc: improve how arch-optimized code is integrated

[Julian Calaby]

Hi Eric,

On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 5:49 AM Eric Biggers <ebiggers at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2025 at 06:15:24PM +1000, Julian Calaby wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 8, 2025 at 6:07 AM Eric Biggers <ebiggers at kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > This series is also available at:
> > >
> > >     git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ebiggers/linux.git lib-crc-arch-v2
> > >
> > > This series improves how lib/crc supports arch-optimized code.  First,
> > > instead of the arch-optimized CRC code being in arch/$(SRCARCH)/lib/, it
> > > will now be in lib/crc/$(SRCARCH)/.  Second, the API functions (e.g.
> > > crc32c()), arch-optimized functions (e.g. crc32c_arch()), and generic
> > > functions (e.g. crc32c_base()) will now be part of a single module for
> > > each CRC type, allowing better inlining and dead code elimination.  The
> > > second change is made possible by the first.
> > >
> > > As an example, consider CONFIG_CRC32=m on x86.  We'll now have just
> > > crc32.ko instead of both crc32-x86.ko and crc32.ko.  The two modules
> > > were already coupled together and always both got loaded together via
> > > direct symbol dependency, so the separation provided no benefit.
> > >
> > > Note: later I'd like to apply the same design to lib/crypto/ too, where
> > > often the API functions are out-of-line so this will work even better.
> > > In those cases, for each algorithm we currently have 3 modules all
> > > coupled together, e.g. libsha256.ko, libsha256-generic.ko, and
> > > sha256-x86.ko.  We should have just one, inline things properly, and
> > > rely on the compiler's dead code elimination to decide the inclusion of
> > > the generic code instead of manually setting it via kconfig.
> > >
> > > Having arch-specific code outside arch/ was somewhat controversial when
> > > Zinc proposed it back in 2018.  But I don't think the concerns are
> > > warranted.  It's better from a technical perspective, as it enables the
> > > improvements mentioned above.  This model is already successfully used
> > > in other places in the kernel such as lib/raid6/.  The community of each
> > > architecture still remains free to work on the code, even if it's not in
> > > arch/.  At the time there was also a desire to put the library code in
> > > the same files as the old-school crypto API, but that was a mistake; now
> > > that the library is separate, that's no longer a constraint either.
> >
> > Quick question, and apologies if this has been covered elsewhere.
> >
> > Why not just use choice blocks in Kconfig to choose the compiled-in
> > crc32 variant instead of this somewhat indirect scheme?
> >
> > This would keep the dependencies grouped by arch and provide a single place to
> > choose whether the generic or arch-specific method is used.
>
> It's not clear exactly what you're suggesting, but it sounds like you're
> complaining about this:
>
>     config CRC32_ARCH
>             bool
>             depends on CRC32 && CRC_OPTIMIZATIONS
>             default y if ARM && KERNEL_MODE_NEON
>             default y if ARM64
>             default y if LOONGARCH
>             default y if MIPS && CPU_MIPSR6
>             default y if PPC64 && ALTIVEC
>             default y if RISCV && RISCV_ISA_ZBC
>             default y if S390
>             default y if SPARC64
>             default y if X86

I was suggesting something roughly like:

choice
    prompt "CRC32 Variant"
    depends on CRC32 && CRC_OPTIMIZATIONS

config CRC32_ARCH_ARM_NEON
    bool "ARM NEON"
    default y
    depends ARM && KERNEL_MODE_NEON

...

config CRC32_GENERIC
    bool "Generic"

endchoice

> This patchset strikes a balance where the vast majority of the arch-specific CRC
> code is isolated in lib/crc/$(SRCARCH), and the exceptions are just
> lib/crc/Makefile and lib/crc/Kconfig.  I think these exceptions make sense,
> given that we're building a single module per CRC variant.  We'd have to go
> through some hoops to isolate the arch-specific Kconfig and Makefile snippets
> into per-arch files, which don't seem worth it here IMO.

I was only really concerned with the Kconfig structure, I was
expecting Kbuild to look roughly like this: (filenames are wrong)

crc32-y += crc32-base.o
crc32-$(CRC32_ARCH_ARM_NEON) += arch/arm/crc32-neon.o
...
crc32-$(CRC32_GENERIC) += crc32-generic.o

but yeah, your proposal here has grown on me now that I think about it
and the only real "benefit" mine has is that architectures can display
choices for variants that have Kconfig-visible requirements, which
probably isn't that many so it wouldn't be useful in practice.

Thanks for answering my question,

-- 
Julian Calaby

Email: julian.calaby at gmail.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/