On Sun, Oct 05, 2025 at 06:18:03PM +0100, David Laight wrote: > On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 09:20:27 -0700 > Caleb Sander Mateos <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 3:18 AM Guan-Chun Wu <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 04:33:12PM -0700, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 11:59 PM Guan-Chun Wu > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > From: Kuan-Wei Chiu <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > Replace the use of strchr() in base64_decode() with precomputed > > > > > reverse > > > > > lookup tables for each variant. This avoids repeated string scans and > > > > > improves performance. Use -1 in the tables to mark invalid characters. > > > > > > > > > > Decode: > > > > > 64B ~1530ns -> ~75ns (~20.4x) > > > > > 1KB ~27726ns -> ~1165ns (~23.8x) > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kuan-Wei Chiu <[email protected]> > > > > > Co-developed-by: Guan-Chun Wu <[email protected]> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Guan-Chun Wu <[email protected]> > > > > > --- > > > > > lib/base64.c | 66 > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > > > > > 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/base64.c b/lib/base64.c > > > > > index 1af557785..b20fdf168 100644 > > > > > --- a/lib/base64.c > > > > > +++ b/lib/base64.c > > > > > @@ -21,6 +21,63 @@ static const char base64_tables[][65] = { > > > > > [BASE64_IMAP] = > > > > > "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+,", > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > +static const s8 base64_rev_tables[][256] = { > > > > > + [BASE64_STD] = { > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, 62, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, 63, > > > > > + 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, > > > > > 11, 12, 13, 14, > > > > > + 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, > > > > > 37, 38, 39, 40, > > > > > + 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + }, > > > > > + [BASE64_URLSAFE] = { > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, 62, -1, -1, > > > > > + 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, > > > > > 11, 12, 13, 14, > > > > > + 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, 63, > > > > > + -1, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, > > > > > 37, 38, 39, 40, > > > > > + 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + }, > > > > > + [BASE64_IMAP] = { > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, 62, > > > > > 63, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, > > > > > 11, 12, 13, 14, > > > > > + 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, > > > > > 37, 38, 39, 40, > > > > > + 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > -1, -1, -1, -1, > > > > > + }, > > > > > > > > Do we actually need 3 separate lookup tables? It looks like all 3 > > > > variants agree on the value of any characters they have in common. So > > > > we could combine them into a single lookup table that would work for a > > > > valid base64 string of any variant. The only downside I can see is > > > > that base64 strings which are invalid in some variants might no longer > > > > be rejected by base64_decode(). > > > > > > > > > > In addition to the approach David mentioned, maybe we can use a common > > > lookup table for A–Z, a–z, and 0–9, and then handle the variant-specific > > > symbols with a switch. > > It is certainly possible to generate the initialiser from a #define to > avoid all the replicated source. > > > > > > > For example: > > > > > > static const s8 base64_rev_common[256] = { > > > [0 ... 255] = -1, > > > ['A'] = 0, ['B'] = 1, /* ... */, ['Z'] = 25, > > If you assume ASCII (I doubt Linux runs on any EBCDIC systems) you > can assume the characters are sequential and miss ['B'] = etc to > reduce the the line lengths. > (Even EBCDIC has A-I J-R S-Z and 0-9 as adjacent values) > > > > ['a'] = 26, /* ... */, ['z'] = 51, > > > ['0'] = 52, /* ... */, ['9'] = 61, > > > }; > > > > > > static inline int base64_rev_lookup(u8 c, enum base64_variant variant) { > > > s8 v = base64_rev_common[c]; > > > if (v != -1) > > > return v; > > > > > > switch (variant) { > > > case BASE64_STD: > > > if (c == '+') return 62; > > > if (c == '/') return 63; > > > break; > > > case BASE64_IMAP: > > > if (c == '+') return 62; > > > if (c == ',') return 63; > > > break; > > > case BASE64_URLSAFE: > > > if (c == '-') return 62; > > > if (c == '_') return 63; > > > break; > > > } > > > return -1; > > > } > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > That adds several branches in the hot loop, at least 2 of which are > > unpredictable for valid base64 input of a given variant (v != -1 as > > well as the first c check in the applicable switch case). > > I'd certainly pass in the character values for 62 and 63 so they are > determined well outside the inner loop. > Possibly even going as far as #define BASE64_STD ('+' << 8 | '/'). > > > That seems like it would hurt performance, no? > > I think having 3 separate tables > > would be preferable to making the hot loop more branchy. > > Depends how common you think 62 and 63 are... > I guess 63 comes from 0xff bytes - so might be quite common. > > One thing I think you've missed is that the decode converts 4 characters > into 24 bits - which then need carefully writing into the output buffer. > There is no need to check whether each character is valid. > After: > val_24 = t[b[0]] | t[b[1]] << 6 | t[b[2]] << 12 | t[b[3]] << 18; > val_24 will be negative iff one of b[0..3] is invalid. > So you only need to check every 4 input characters, not for every one. > That does require separate tables. > (Or have a decoder that always maps "+-" to 62 and "/,_" to 63.) > > David >
Thanks for the feedback. For the next revision, we’ll use a single lookup table that maps both + and - to 62, and /, _, and , to 63. Does this approach sound good to everyone? Best regards, Guan-Chun > > > > Best, > > Caleb > > >
