[PATCH v4 04/20] rust: add new `num` module with useful integer operations

[Benno Lossin]

On Mon Jun 2, 2025 at 3:09 PM CEST, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Thu May 29, 2025 at 4:27 PM JST, Benno Lossin wrote:
>> On Thu May 29, 2025 at 3:18 AM CEST, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>> On Thu May 29, 2025 at 5:17 AM JST, Benno Lossin wrote:
>>>> On Wed May 21, 2025 at 8:44 AM CEST, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>>>> +    /// Align `self` up to `alignment`.
>>>>> +    ///
>>>>> +    /// `alignment` must be a power of 2 for accurate results.
>>>>> +    ///
>>>>> +    /// Wraps around to `0` if the requested alignment pushes the result above the type's limits.
>>>>> +    ///
>>>>> +    /// # Examples
>>>>> +    ///
>>>>> +    /// ```
>>>>> +    /// use kernel::num::NumExt;
>>>>> +    ///
>>>>> +    /// assert_eq!(0x4fffu32.align_up(0x1000), 0x5000);
>>>>> +    /// assert_eq!(0x4000u32.align_up(0x1000), 0x4000);
>>>>> +    /// assert_eq!(0x0u32.align_up(0x1000), 0x0);
>>>>> +    /// assert_eq!(0xffffu16.align_up(0x100), 0x0);
>>>>> +    /// assert_eq!(0x4fffu32.align_up(0x0), 0x0);
>>>>> +    /// ```
>>>>> +    fn align_up(self, alignment: Self) -> Self;
>>>>
>>>> Isn't this `next_multiple_of` [1] (it also allows non power of 2
>>>> inputs).
>>>>
>>>> [1]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.u32.html#method.next_multiple_of
>>>
>>> It is, however the fact that `next_multiple_of` works with non powers of
>>> two also means it needs to perform a modulo operation. That operation
>>> might well be optimized away by the compiler, but ACAICT we have no way
>>> of proving it will always be the case, hence the always-optimal
>>> implementation here.
>>
>> When you use a power of 2 constant, then I'm very sure that it will get
>> optimized [1]. Even with non-powers of 2, you don't get a division [2].
>> If you find some code that is not optimized, then sure add a custom
>> function.
>>
>> [1]: https://godbolt.org/z/57M9e36T3
>> [2]: https://godbolt.org/z/9P4P8zExh
>
> That's impressive and would definitely work well with a constant. But
> when the value is not known at compile-time, the division does occur
> unfortunately: https://godbolt.org/z/WK1bPMeEx
>
> So I think we will still need a kernel-optimized version of these
> alignment functions.

Hmm what exactly is the use-case for a variable align amount? Could you
store it in const generics?

If not, there are also these two variants that are more efficient:

* option: https://godbolt.org/z/ecnb19zaM
* unsafe: https://godbolt.org/z/EqTaGov71

So if the compiler can infer it from context it still optimizes it :)

But yeah to be extra sure, you need your version. By the way, what
happens if `align` is not a power of 2 in your version?

>>> Also in the kernel we tend to use the `align` nomenclature and I think we
>>> should preserve that for clarity.
>>
>> That's also fair, but we lose the constness of `next_multiple_of`, so
>> you can't use `align_up` in a const function. That might confuse people
>> and then they write their own const helper function... I'd prefer we use
>> all functions that are available in the stdlib.
>
> We definitely want const variants of these, one way or the other (const
> methods in traits are not available yet unfortunately). And yes, on
> principle I am aligned (haha) with using stdlib functions when possible.

Then I'd recommend getting in touch with upstream Rust :) And choose
rusty names for our trait so we have an easy switch.

---
Cheers,
Benno