lib/memcopy: use glibc version

the kernel's memcpy and memmove is very inefficient. But the glibc version is
quite fast, in some cases it is 10 times faster than the kernel version. So I
introduce some memory copy macros and functions of the glibc to improve the
kernel version's performance.

The strategy of the memory functions is:
1. Copy bytes until the destination pointer is aligned.
2. Copy words in unrolled loops.  If the source and destination are not
   aligned in the same way, use word memory operations, but shift and merge
   two read words before writing.
3. Copy the few remaining bytes.

Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox*******>
Signed-off-by: faux123 <reioux@gmail.com>
lib/string: use glibc version

the performance of memcpy and memmove of the general version is very
inefficient, this patch improved them.

Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox*******>
Signed-off-by: faux123 <reioux@gmail.com>
ARM: 7493/1: use generic unaligned.h

This moves ARM over to the asm-generic/unaligned.h header. This has the
benefit of better code generated especially for ARMv7 on gcc 4.7+
compilers.

As Arnd Bergmann, points out: The asm-generic version uses the "struct"
version for native-endian unaligned access and the "byteshift" version
for the opposite endianess. The current ARM version however uses the
"byteshift" implementation for both.

Thanks to Nicolas Pitre for the excellent analysis:

Test case:

int foo (int *x) { return get_unaligned(x); }
long long bar (long long *x) { return get_unaligned(x); }

With the current ARM version:

foo:
	ldrb	r3, [r0, #2]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B]
	ldrb	r1, [r0, #1]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B]
	ldrb	r2, [r0, #0]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)]
	mov	r3, r3, asl #16	@ tmp154, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B],
	ldrb	r0, [r0, #3]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B]
	orr	r3, r3, r1, asl #8	@, tmp155, tmp154, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B],
	orr	r3, r3, r2	@ tmp157, tmp155, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)]
	orr	r0, r3, r0, asl #24	@,, tmp157, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B],
	bx	lr	@

bar:
	stmfd	sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7}	@,
	mov	r2, #0	@ tmp184,
	ldrb	r5, [r0, #6]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 6B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 6B]
	ldrb	r4, [r0, #5]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 5B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 5B]
	ldrb	ip, [r0, #2]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B]
	ldrb	r1, [r0, #4]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 4B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 4B]
	mov	r5, r5, asl #16	@ tmp175, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 6B],
	ldrb	r7, [r0, #1]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B]
	orr	r5, r5, r4, asl #8	@, tmp176, tmp175, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 5B],
	ldrb	r6, [r0, #7]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 7B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 7B]
	orr	r5, r5, r1	@ tmp178, tmp176, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 4B]
	ldrb	r4, [r0, #0]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)]
	mov	ip, ip, asl #16	@ tmp188, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B],
	ldrb	r1, [r0, #3]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B]
	orr	ip, ip, r7, asl #8	@, tmp189, tmp188, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B],
	orr	r3, r5, r6, asl #24	@,, tmp178, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 7B],
	orr	ip, ip, r4	@ tmp191, tmp189, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)]
	orr	ip, ip, r1, asl #24	@, tmp194, tmp191, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B],
	mov	r1, r3	@,
	orr	r0, r2, ip	@ tmp171, tmp184, tmp194
	ldmfd	sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7}
	bx	lr

In both cases the code is slightly suboptimal.  One may wonder why
wasting r2 with the constant 0 in the second case for example.  And all
the mov's could be folded in subsequent orr's, etc.

Now with the asm-generic version:

foo:
	ldr	r0, [r0, #0]	@ unaligned	@,* x
	bx	lr	@

bar:
	mov	r3, r0	@ x, x
	ldr	r0, [r0, #0]	@ unaligned	@,* x
	ldr	r1, [r3, #4]	@ unaligned	@,
	bx	lr	@

This is way better of course, but only because this was compiled for
ARMv7. In this case the compiler knows that the hardware can do
unaligned word access.  This isn't that obvious for foo(), but if we
remove the get_unaligned() from bar as follows:

long long bar (long long *x) {return *x; }

then the resulting code is:

bar:
	ldmia	r0, {r0, r1}	@ x,,
	bx	lr	@

So this proves that the presumed aligned vs unaligned cases does have
influence on the instructions the compiler may use and that the above
unaligned code results are not just an accident.

Still... this isn't fully conclusive without at least looking at the
resulting assembly fron a pre ARMv6 compilation.  Let's see with an
ARMv5 target:

foo:
	ldrb	r3, [r0, #0]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp139,* x
	ldrb	r1, [r0, #1]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp140,
	ldrb	r2, [r0, #2]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp143,
	ldrb	r0, [r0, #3]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp146,
	orr	r3, r3, r1, asl #8	@, tmp142, tmp139, tmp140,
	orr	r3, r3, r2, asl #16	@, tmp145, tmp142, tmp143,
	orr	r0, r3, r0, asl #24	@,, tmp145, tmp146,
	bx	lr	@

bar:
	stmfd	sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7}	@,
	ldrb	r2, [r0, #0]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp139,* x
	ldrb	r7, [r0, #1]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp140,
	ldrb	r3, [r0, #4]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp149,
	ldrb	r6, [r0, #5]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp150,
	ldrb	r5, [r0, #2]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp143,
	ldrb	r4, [r0, #6]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp153,
	ldrb	r1, [r0, #7]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp156,
	ldrb	ip, [r0, #3]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp146,
	orr	r2, r2, r7, asl #8	@, tmp142, tmp139, tmp140,
	orr	r3, r3, r6, asl #8	@, tmp152, tmp149, tmp150,
	orr	r2, r2, r5, asl #16	@, tmp145, tmp142, tmp143,
	orr	r3, r3, r4, asl #16	@, tmp155, tmp152, tmp153,
	orr	r0, r2, ip, asl #24	@,, tmp145, tmp146,
	orr	r1, r3, r1, asl #24	@,, tmp155, tmp156,
	ldmfd	sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7}
	bx	lr

Compared to the initial results, this is really nicely optimized and I
couldn't do much better if I were to hand code it myself.

Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>
Reviewed-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>
Tested-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
modified for Mako from kernel.org reference

Signed-off-by: faux123 <reioux@gmail.com>

Conflicts:
	arch/arm/include/asm/unaligned.h

Conflicts:

	arch/arm/include/asm/unaligned.h
Some other not initialized stuff

to be conform with linaro restrictions

Change-Id: I295e8527816ea082b3bda62ce33fc3bec5bc65ef
Fix some other linaro compile errors

some parts need to be initilalized and struct needed a change

Change-Id: I6172a16e709c52eeaf2d7e32fe19ba0d3df73176
Fix uninitialized kbuf in sysctl.c for linaro optimizations

Change-Id: Idd983e621b67d4016ff113b18de8f8a59bc70c85
lib/int_sqrt.c: optimize square root algorithm

Optimize the current version of the shift-and-subtract (hardware)
algorithm, described by John von Newmann[1] and Guy L Steele.

Iterating 1,000,000 times, perf shows for the current version:

 Performance counter stats for './sqrt-curr' (10 runs):

         27.170996 task-clock                #    0.979 CPUs utilized            ( +-  3.19% )
                 3 context-switches          #    0.103 K/sec                    ( +-  4.76% )
                 0 cpu-migrations            #    0.004 K/sec                    ( +-100.00% )
               104 page-faults               #    0.004 M/sec                    ( +-  0.16% )
        64,921,199 cycles                    #    2.389 GHz                      ( +-  0.03% )
        28,967,789 stalled-cycles-frontend   #   44.62% frontend cycles idle     ( +-  0.18% )
   <not supported> stalled-cycles-backend
       104,502,623 instructions              #    1.61  insns per cycle
                                             #    0.28  stalled cycles per insn  ( +-  0.00% )
        34,088,368 branches                  # 1254.587 M/sec                    ( +-  0.00% )
             4,901 branch-misses             #    0.01% of all branches          ( +-  1.32% )

       0.027763015 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +-  3.22% )

And for the new version:

Performance counter stats for './sqrt-new' (10 runs):

          0.496869 task-clock                #    0.519 CPUs utilized            ( +-  2.38% )
                 0 context-switches          #    0.000 K/sec
                 0 cpu-migrations            #    0.403 K/sec                    ( +-100.00% )
               104 page-faults               #    0.209 M/sec                    ( +-  0.15% )
           590,760 cycles                    #    1.189 GHz                      ( +-  2.35% )
           395,053 stalled-cycles-frontend   #   66.87% frontend cycles idle     ( +-  3.67% )
   <not supported> stalled-cycles-backend
           398,963 instructions              #    0.68  insns per cycle
                                             #    0.99  stalled cycles per insn  ( +-  0.39% )
            70,228 branches                  #  141.341 M/sec                    ( +-  0.36% )
             3,364 branch-misses             #    4.79% of all branches          ( +-  5.45% )

       0.000957440 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +-  2.42% )

Furthermore, this saves space in instruction text:

   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
    111       0       0     111      6f lib/int_sqrt-baseline.o
     89       0       0      89      59 lib/int_sqrt.o

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Draft_of_a_Report_on_the_EDVAC

Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Gonzalez <jgonzlez@linets.cl>
Tested-by: Jonathan Gonzalez <jgonzlez@linets.cl>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Francisco Franco <franciscofranco.1990@gmail.com>