From: Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@intel.com>
To: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc: Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@intel.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
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>,
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@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] bitops: define gen_test_bit() the same way as the rest of functions
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2022 17:57:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220607155722.44040-1-alexandr.lobakin@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yp9WFREfdfkho0hm@elver.google.com>
From: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2022 15:43:49 +0200
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 01:49PM +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> > Currently, the generic test_bit() function is defined as a one-liner
> > and in case with constant bitmaps the compiler is unable to optimize
> > it to a constant. At the same time, gen_test_and_*_bit() are being
> > optimized pretty good.
> > Define gen_test_bit() the same way as they are defined.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@intel.com>
> > ---
> > include/asm-generic/bitops/generic-non-atomic.h | 6 +++++-
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/bitops/generic-non-atomic.h b/include/asm-generic/bitops/generic-non-atomic.h
> > index 7a60adfa6e7d..202d8a3b40e1 100644
> > --- a/include/asm-generic/bitops/generic-non-atomic.h
> > +++ b/include/asm-generic/bitops/generic-non-atomic.h
> > @@ -118,7 +118,11 @@ gen___test_and_change_bit(unsigned int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
> > static __always_inline int
> > gen_test_bit(unsigned int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
> > {
> > - return 1UL & (addr[BIT_WORD(nr)] >> (nr & (BITS_PER_LONG-1)));
> > + const unsigned long *p = (const unsigned long *)addr + BIT_WORD(nr);
> > + unsigned long mask = BIT_MASK(nr);
> > + unsigned long val = *p;
> > +
> > + return !!(val & mask);
>
> Unfortunately this makes the dereference of 'addr' non-volatile, and
> effectively weakens test_bit() to the point where I'd no longer consider
> it atomic. Per atomic_bitops.txt, test_bit() is atomic.
>
> The generic version has been using a volatile access to make it atomic
> (akin to generic READ_ONCE() casting to volatile). The volatile is also
> the reason the compiler can't optimize much, because volatile forces a
> real memory access.
Ah-ha, I see now. Thanks for catching and explaining this!
>
> Yes, confusingly, test_bit() lives in non-atomic.h, and this had caused
> confusion before, but the decision was made that moving it will cause
> headaches for ppc so it was left alone:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/87a78xgu8o.fsf@dja-thinkpad.axtens.net/T/#u
>
> As for how to make test_bit() more compiler-optimization friendly, I'm
> guessing that test_bit() needs some special casing where even the
> generic arch_test_bit() is different from the gen_test_bit().
> gen_test_bit() should probably assert that whatever it is called with
> can actually be evaluated at compile-time so it is never accidentally
> used otherwise.
I like the idea! Will do in v2.
I can move the generics and after, right below them, define
'const_*' helpers which will mostly redirect to 'generic_*', but
for test_bit() it will be a separate function with no `volatile`
and with an assertion that the input args are constants.
>
> I would also propose adding a comment close to the deref that test_bit()
> is atomic and the deref needs to remain volatile, so future people will
> not try to do the same optimization.
I think that's also the reason why it's not underscored, right?
>
> Thanks,
> -- Marco
Thanks,
Olek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-07 15:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-06 11:49 [PATCH 0/6] bitops: let optimize out non-atomic bitops on compile-time constants Alexander Lobakin
2022-06-06 11:49 ` [PATCH 1/6] ia64, processor: fix -Wincompatible-pointer-types in ia64_get_irr() Alexander Lobakin
2022-06-06 11:49 ` [PATCH 2/6] bitops: always define asm-generic non-atomic bitops Alexander Lobakin
2022-06-06 12:44 ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-06 14:21 ` Alexander Lobakin
2022-06-06 11:49 ` [PATCH 3/6] bitops: define gen_test_bit() the same way as the rest of functions Alexander Lobakin
2022-06-06 16:19 ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-07 13:43 ` Marco Elver
2022-06-07 15:57 ` Alexander Lobakin [this message]
2022-06-07 16:15 ` Marco Elver
2022-06-07 16:28 ` Andy Shevchenko
2022-06-06 11:49 ` [PATCH 4/6] bitops: unify non-atomic bitops prototypes across architectures Alexander Lobakin
2022-06-06 16:25 ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-06 20:48 ` Yury Norov
2022-06-07 11:03 ` Alexander Lobakin
2022-06-06 11:49 ` [PATCH 5/6] bitops: wrap non-atomic bitops with a transparent macro Alexander Lobakin
2022-06-06 16:27 ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-07 10:57 ` Alexander Lobakin
2022-06-07 11:07 ` Alexander Lobakin
2022-06-06 11:49 ` [PATCH 6/6] bitops: let optimize out non-atomic bitops on compile-time constants Alexander Lobakin
2022-06-06 13:50 ` [PATCH 0/6] " Mark Rutland
2022-06-07 12:45 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2022-06-07 15:47 ` Alexander Lobakin
2022-06-08 9:55 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2022-06-08 13:31 ` 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=20220607155722.44040-1-alexandr.lobakin@intel.com \
--to=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-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mattst88@gmail.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rth@twiddle.net \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=ysato@users.sourceforge.jp \
--cc=yury.norov@gmail.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).