public inbox for linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
To: Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@intel.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>, Brian Cain <bcain@quicinc.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>,
	Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Marco Elver <elver@google.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org,
	linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] bitops: let optimize out non-atomic bitops on compile-time constants
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 20:26:54 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YqlRfoB5+VBIw8gJ@yury-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220610113427.908751-7-alexandr.lobakin@intel.com>

Hi Alexander,

On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 01:34:27PM +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> Currently, many architecture-specific non-atomic bitop
> implementations use inline asm or other hacks which are faster or
> more robust when working with "real" variables (i.e. fields from
> the structures etc.), but the compilers have no clue how to optimize
> them out when called on compile-time constants. That said, the
> following code:
> 
> 	DECLARE_BITMAP(foo, BITS_PER_LONG) = { }; // -> unsigned long foo[1];
> 	unsigned long bar = BIT(BAR_BIT);
> 	unsigned long baz = 0;
> 
> 	__set_bit(FOO_BIT, foo);
> 	baz |= BIT(BAZ_BIT);
> 
> 	BUILD_BUG_ON(!__builtin_constant_p(test_bit(FOO_BIT, foo));
> 	BUILD_BUG_ON(!__builtin_constant_p(bar & BAR_BIT));
> 	BUILD_BUG_ON(!__builtin_constant_p(baz & BAZ_BIT));

Can you put this snippet into lib/test_bitops.c?

Thanks,
Yury

> triggers the first assertion on x86_64, which means that the
> compiler is unable to evaluate it to a compile-time initializer
> when the architecture-specific bitop is used even if it's obvious.
> In order to let the compiler optimize out such cases, expand the
> bitop() macro to use the "constant" C non-atomic bitop
> implementations when all of the arguments passed are compile-time
> constants, which means that the result will be a compile-time
> constant as well, so that it produces more efficient and simple
> code in 100% cases, comparing to the architecture-specific
> counterparts.
> 
> The savings are architecture, compiler and compiler flags dependent,
> for example, on x86_64 -O2:
> 
> GCC 12: add/remove: 78/29 grow/shrink: 332/525 up/down: 31325/-61560 (-30235)
> LLVM 13: add/remove: 79/76 grow/shrink: 184/537 up/down: 55076/-141892 (-86816)
> LLVM 14: add/remove: 10/3 grow/shrink: 93/138 up/down: 3705/-6992 (-3287)
> 
> and ARM64 (courtesy of Mark):
> 
> GCC 11: add/remove: 92/29 grow/shrink: 933/2766 up/down: 39340/-82580 (-43240)
> LLVM 14: add/remove: 21/11 grow/shrink: 620/651 up/down: 12060/-15824 (-3764)
> 
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@intel.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/bitops.h | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/bitops.h b/include/linux/bitops.h
> index 753f98e0dcf5..364bdc3606b4 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bitops.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bitops.h
> @@ -33,8 +33,24 @@ extern unsigned long __sw_hweight64(__u64 w);
>  
>  #include <asm-generic/bitops/generic-non-atomic.h>
>  
> +/*
> + * Many architecture-specific non-atomic bitops contain inline asm code and due
> + * to that the compiler can't optimize them to compile-time expressions or
> + * constants. In contrary, gen_*() helpers are defined in pure C and compilers
> + * optimize them just well.
> + * Therefore, to make `unsigned long foo = 0; __set_bit(BAR, &foo)` effectively
> + * equal to `unsigned long foo = BIT(BAR)`, pick the generic C alternative when
> + * the arguments can be resolved at compile time. That expression itself is a
> + * constant and doesn't bring any functional changes to the rest of cases.
> + * The casts to `uintptr_t` are needed to mitigate `-Waddress` warnings when
> + * passing a bitmap from .bss or .data (-> `!!addr` is always true).
> + */
>  #define bitop(op, nr, addr)						\
> -	op(nr, addr)
> +	((__builtin_constant_p(nr) &&					\
> +	  __builtin_constant_p((uintptr_t)(addr) != (uintptr_t)NULL) &&	\
> +	  (uintptr_t)(addr) != (uintptr_t)NULL &&			\
> +	  __builtin_constant_p(*(const unsigned long *)(addr))) ?	\
> +	 const##op(nr, addr) : op(nr, addr))
>  
>  #define __set_bit(nr, addr)		bitop(___set_bit, nr, addr)
>  #define __clear_bit(nr, addr)		bitop(___clear_bit, nr, addr)
> -- 
> 2.36.1

  reply	other threads:[~2022-06-15  3:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-06-10 11:34 [PATCH v2 0/6] bitops: let optimize out non-atomic bitops on compile-time constants Alexander Lobakin
2022-06-10 11:34 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] ia64, processor: fix -Wincompatible-pointer-types in ia64_get_irr() Alexander Lobakin
2022-06-10 12:18   ` David Laight
2022-06-10 13:46   ` Andy Shevchenko
2022-06-15  2:59   ` Yury Norov
2022-06-10 11:34 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] bitops: always define asm-generic non-atomic bitops Alexander Lobakin
2022-06-10 13:50   ` Andy Shevchenko
2022-06-10 16:02     ` Luck, Tony
2022-06-10 16:32       ` Marco Elver
2022-06-13 14:19         ` Alexander Lobakin
2022-06-13 14:33           ` Marco Elver
2022-06-15  2:47             ` Yury Norov
2022-06-15  7:46               ` Marco Elver
2022-06-13 16:26           ` Luck, Tony
2022-06-13 21:29             ` David Laight
2022-06-10 11:34 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] bitops: unify non-atomic bitops prototypes across architectures Alexander Lobakin
2022-06-10 11:34 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] bitops: define const_*() versions of the non-atomics Alexander Lobakin
2022-06-10 13:56   ` Andy Shevchenko
2022-06-13 14:30     ` Alexander Lobakin
2022-06-15  2:57   ` Yury Norov
2022-06-15 13:55     ` Alexander Lobakin
2022-06-15 15:52       ` David Laight
2022-06-10 11:34 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] bitops: wrap non-atomic bitops with a transparent macro Alexander Lobakin
2022-06-10 11:34 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] bitops: let optimize out non-atomic bitops on compile-time constants Alexander Lobakin
2022-06-15  3:26   ` Yury Norov [this message]
2022-06-15 14:00     ` Alexander Lobakin
2022-06-13  7:35 ` [PATCH v2 0/6] " Geert Uytterhoeven
2022-06-13 14:26   ` Alexander Lobakin
2022-06-13 15:22     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2022-06-15 14:17       ` Alexander Lobakin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YqlRfoB5+VBIw8gJ@yury-laptop \
    --to=yury.norov@gmail.com \
    --cc=alexandr.lobakin@intel.com \
    --cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=bcain@quicinc.com \
    --cc=bp@suse.de \
    --cc=dalias@libc.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=elver@google.com \
    --cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org \
    --cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mattst88@gmail.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
    --cc=ysato@users.sourceforge.jp \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox