From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932089AbbDNMbV (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:31:21 -0400
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:56528 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752908AbbDNMbO (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:31:14 -0400
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:31:02 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: rusty@rustcorp.com.au, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, oleg@redhat.com,
        paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andi@firstfloor.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, linux@horizon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/10] module: Optimize __module_address() using a
 latched RB-tree
Message-ID: <20150414123102.GK5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20150413141126.756350256@infradead.org>
 <20150413141213.614514026@infradead.org>
 <20150413164949.GF6040@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150413164949.GF6040@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 06:49:49PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> > +static __always_inline int
> > +mod_tree_comp(void *key, struct latch_tree_node *n)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long val = (unsigned long)key;
> > +	unsigned long start, end;
> > +
> > +	end = start = __mod_tree_val(n);
> > +	end += __mod_tree_size(n);
> > +
> > +	if (val < start)
> > +		return -1;
> > +
> > +	if (val >= end)
> > +		return 1;
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> 
> So since we are counting nanoseconds, I suspect this could be written 
> more optimally as:
> 
> {
> 	unsigned long val = (unsigned long)key;
> 	unsigned long start, end;
> 
> 	start = __mod_tree_val(n);
> 	if (val < start)
> 		return -1;
> 
> 	end = start + __mod_tree_size(n);
> 	if (val >= end)
> 		return 1;
> 
> 	return 0;
> }
> 
> right?

I was afraid it would rip apart the common bits of
__mod_tree_{val,size}(), iow. it would end up doing the whole
latch_tree_node -> mod_tree_node -> mod and mtn_init comparison dance
twice.

But GCC does the right thing, so yes.