From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D6161EB5F8
	for <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 29 Jan 2026 23:20:36 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201
ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116;
	t=1769728836; cv=none; b=XwaceXOxlSGO5Q/YZmk0bM/+ZFaFiJbvyiB5lzFVrg+9/GKeOFc4NZ875L0LDrnTVL37TiXuCu47u5MSBOYAyG67mMTB3Ahq2vkE4zPxGCVkvhHe+gFG+vt7DalvRiz9mZkgY8wehcnZyp91KdZ4k5JpgvrAmAAbFd4wAXq5j0c=
ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org;
	s=arc-20240116; t=1769728836; c=relaxed/simple;
	bh=vqzujNeThkBr6ZJTdk499bLrywLr5OWcK6PiPvAOV/U=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References:
	 Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=fOZtE7CYFVvXWIALyptJ3ZY6fmhqOrJAqn8ogQGAg0vRRliDMasN4FCiodZ90393YaY4tly2RX8Tpw/RvhWKqNSrZ1mA+nGbe32/MYKJ2yw/+xyL5V0oyDhC5dNWwn/CZE1LVyIOw/6YjRQZ6K7kZ0sMwJNstGjju592J2K61oA=
ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux-foundation.org header.i=@linux-foundation.org header.b=1sz4SE7D; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201
Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org;
	dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux-foundation.org header.i=@linux-foundation.org header.b="1sz4SE7D"
Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 113CCC4CEF7;
	Thu, 29 Jan 2026 23:20:36 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linux-foundation.org;
	s=korg; t=1769728836;
	bh=vqzujNeThkBr6ZJTdk499bLrywLr5OWcK6PiPvAOV/U=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=1sz4SE7DTAt9hNqHZizKE0enbVM+8uMqs/hkiHuE3H3wfpuf6ADaAK3d+RRw32yCu
	 iSvx7WBSXzkJiNlhDUNi7u1rcLsTA2i7pF3EvagaGCTXY1afcApN75j91sE98j7DJb
	 k6+zZLYGGRh9EywSrERWrfB9geT5I+SOTL82ktl8=
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 15:20:35 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Matteo Croce <technoboy85@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KUnit: memcpy: add benchmark
Message-Id: <20260129152035.1fbdddb214c75875b67ba5b9@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20260129004328.102770-1-teknoraver@meta.com>
References: <20260129004328.102770-1-teknoraver@meta.com>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:linux-kernel+subscribe@vger.kernel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:linux-kernel+unsubscribe@vger.kernel.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 01:43:28 +0100 Matteo Croce <technoboy85@gmail.com> wrote:

> Add optional benchmarks for memcpy() and memmove() functions.
> Each benchmark is run twice: first with buffers aligned and then with
> buffers unaligned, to spot unaligned accesses on platforms where they
> have a noticeable performance impact.
> 
> ...
>
> +static int memcpy_bench_align(struct kunit *test, bool unalign)
> +{
> +	u64 start, end, total_ns = 0;
> +	char *buf1;
> +	char *buf2;
> +	int ret = 0;
> +
> +	buf1 = kzalloc(COPY_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!buf1)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	buf2 = kzalloc(COPY_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!buf2) {
> +		ret = -ENOMEM;
> +		goto out_free;
> +	}
> +
> +	preempt_disable();
> +	for (int i = 0; i < COPIES_NUM; i++) {
> +		start = ktime_get_ns();
> +		memcpy(buf1 + unalign, buf2, COPY_SIZE - unalign);
> +		end = ktime_get_ns();
> +		total_ns += end - start;
> +		cond_resched();

Is cond_resched() inside preempt_disable() actually legal?

Might be, but it doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

> +	}
> +	preempt_enable();
> +