[PATCH v4 08/21] lib/crc: Switch ARM and arm64 to 'ksimd' scoped guard API

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2025 at 14:52, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2025 at 14:49, Jonathan Cameron
> <jonathan.cameron at huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 31 Oct 2025 11:39:07 +0100
> > Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git at google.com> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb at kernel.org>
> > >
> > > Before modifying the prototypes of kernel_neon_begin() and
> > > kernel_neon_end() to accommodate kernel mode FP/SIMD state buffers
> > > allocated on the stack, move arm64 to the new 'ksimd' scoped guard API,
> > > which encapsulates the calls to those functions.
> > >
> > > For symmetry, do the same for 32-bit ARM too.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers at kernel.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb at kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > >  lib/crc/arm/crc-t10dif.h   | 16 +++++-----------
> > >  lib/crc/arm/crc32.h        | 11 ++++-------
> > >  lib/crc/arm64/crc-t10dif.h | 16 +++++-----------
> > >  lib/crc/arm64/crc32.h      | 16 ++++++----------
> > >  4 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/crc/arm/crc-t10dif.h b/lib/crc/arm/crc-t10dif.h
> > > index 63441de5e3f1..aaeeab0defb5 100644
> > > --- a/lib/crc/arm/crc-t10dif.h
> > > +++ b/lib/crc/arm/crc-t10dif.h
> >
> > >  static __ro_after_init DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(have_neon);
> > > @@ -20,21 +19,16 @@ asmlinkage void crc_t10dif_pmull8(u16 init_crc, const u8 *buf, size_t len,
> > >  static inline u16 crc_t10dif_arch(u16 crc, const u8 *data, size_t length)
> > >  {
> > >       if (length >= CRC_T10DIF_PMULL_CHUNK_SIZE) {
> > > -             if (static_branch_likely(&have_pmull)) {
> > > -                     if (likely(may_use_simd())) {
> > > -                             kernel_neon_begin();
> > > -                             crc = crc_t10dif_pmull64(crc, data, length);
> > > -                             kernel_neon_end();
> > > -                             return crc;
> > > -                     }
> > > +             if (static_branch_likely(&have_pmull) && likely(may_use_simd())) {
> > > +                     scoped_ksimd()
> > > +                             return crc_t10dif_pmull64(crc, data, length);
> >
> > >               } else if (length > CRC_T10DIF_PMULL_CHUNK_SIZE &&
> > >                          static_branch_likely(&have_neon) &&
> > >                          likely(may_use_simd())) {
> >
> > I briefly thought this was a functional change but it's not because
> > of may_use_simd() being something that isn't going to change between
> > the two evaluations.
> >
> > Would it hurt at all to pull that up to be
> >         if (length >= CRC_T10DIF_PMULL_CHUNK_SIZE && likely(may_use_simd())) {
> >                 if (static_branch_likely(&have_pmull)) {
> >                         scoped_ksimd()
> >                                 return crc_t10dif_pmull64(crc, data, length);
> >
> >                 } else if (length > CRC_T10DIF_PMULL_CHUNK_SIZE &&
> >                            static_branch_likely(&have_neon)) {
> >                 ...
> >
> > ?
> >
>
> Yeah that would be a reasonable cleanup, I guess.

Actually, looking more closely, that would result in may_use_simd()
being evaluated even when the static keys are set to false, given that
the compiler is unlikely to be able to figure out by itself that
may_use_simd() has no side effects.