Re: [PATCH 2/5] accounting unit and variable

[Hideo AOKI <haoki@redhat.com>]

Hideo AOKI wrote:
> David Miller wrote:
>> From: Hideo AOKI <haoki@redhat.com>
>> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:27:13 -0500
>>
>>> Herbert Xu wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 05:23:10PM -0400, Hideo AOKI wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>> +#define SK_DATAGRAM_MEM_QUANTUM ((int)PAGE_SIZE)
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static inline int sk_datagram_pages(int amt)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    return DIV_ROUND_UP(amt, SK_DATAGRAM_MEM_QUANTUM);
>>>>> +}
>>>> Does this really have to be int? Unsigned would let the compiler
>>>> optimise this to a simple shift.
>>> Thank you for the comment.
>>>
>>> This inline function is used to calculate the first argument of 
>>> atomic_add()
>>> and atomic_sub(). Since the argument is int, I believe that using int is
>>> better than using unsigned int.
>>
>> If you know the values will always be positive, as you will know here,
>> it is OK to us unsigned int here and avoids the unacceptable expensive
>> divide instruction.
>>
>> Please fix this.
> 
> Thanks for your comments. I finally understood.
> 
> I'll fix it and resubmit the patch as soon as possible.

Let me propose the following code to use a shift instruction instead
of a divide instruction. I confirmed that the code could remove a
divide instruction, however, I would like to have comment on this
implementation.

+#define SK_DATAGRAM_MEM_QUANTUM ((unsigned int)PAGE_SIZE)
+
+static inline int sk_datagram_pages(int amt)
+{
+	/* Cast to unsigned as an optimization, since amt is always positive. */
+	return DIV_ROUND_UP((unsigned int)amt, SK_DATAGRAM_MEM_QUANTUM);
+}
+

Please let me know if there is proper coding style.

I'm re-testing the whole patch set right now. If there is no problem,
I'll resubmit new patch set, which includes this fix, tomorrow.

Many thanks,
Hideo

-- 
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.