From: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huawei.com>
To: <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>, <linfeilong@huawei.com>,
<liuzhiqiang@huawei.com>
Subject: [PATCH 5/5] sbitmap: add sbitmap_find_bit to remove repeat code in __sbitmap_get/__sbitmap_get_shallow
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2022 12:54:08 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221201045408.21908-6-shikemeng@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221201045408.21908-1-shikemeng@huawei.com>
There are three differences between __sbitmap_get and
__sbitmap_get_shallow when searching free bit:
1. __sbitmap_get_shallow limit number of bit to search per word.
__sbitmap_get has no such limit.
2. __sbitmap_get_shallow always searches with wrap set. __sbitmap_get set
wrap according to round_robin.
3. __sbitmap_get_shallow always searches from first bit in first word.
__sbitmap_get searches from first bit when round_robin is not set
otherwise searches from SB_NR_TO_BIT(sb, alloc_hint).
Add helper function sbitmap_find_bit function to do common search while
accept "limit depth per word", "wrap flag" and "first bit to
search" from caller to support the need of both __sbitmap_get and
__sbitmap_get_shallow.
Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huawei.com>
---
lib/sbitmap.c | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/sbitmap.c b/lib/sbitmap.c
index b6a2cdb9bdaf..93e7db484b96 100644
--- a/lib/sbitmap.c
+++ b/lib/sbitmap.c
@@ -186,26 +186,22 @@ static int sbitmap_find_bit_in_word(struct sbitmap_word *map,
return nr;
}
-static int __sbitmap_get(struct sbitmap *sb, unsigned int alloc_hint)
+static int sbitmap_find_bit(struct sbitmap *sb,
+ unsigned int depth,
+ unsigned int index,
+ unsigned int alloc_hint,
+ bool wrap)
{
- unsigned int i, index;
+ unsigned int i;
int nr = -1;
- index = SB_NR_TO_INDEX(sb, alloc_hint);
-
- /*
- * Unless we're doing round robin tag allocation, just use the
- * alloc_hint to find the right word index. No point in looping
- * twice in find_next_zero_bit() for that case.
- */
- if (sb->round_robin)
- alloc_hint = SB_NR_TO_BIT(sb, alloc_hint);
- else
- alloc_hint = 0;
-
for (i = 0; i < sb->map_nr; i++) {
- nr = sbitmap_find_bit_in_word(&sb->map[index], __map_depth(sb, index),
- alloc_hint, !sb->round_robin);
+ nr = sbitmap_find_bit_in_word(&sb->map[index],
+ min_t(unsigned int,
+ __map_depth(sb, index),
+ depth),
+ alloc_hint, wrap);
+
if (nr != -1) {
nr += index << sb->shift;
break;
@@ -215,11 +211,32 @@ static int __sbitmap_get(struct sbitmap *sb, unsigned int alloc_hint)
alloc_hint = 0;
if (++index >= sb->map_nr)
index = 0;
+
}
return nr;
}
+static int __sbitmap_get(struct sbitmap *sb, unsigned int alloc_hint)
+{
+ unsigned int index;
+
+ index = SB_NR_TO_INDEX(sb, alloc_hint);
+
+ /*
+ * Unless we're doing round robin tag allocation, just use the
+ * alloc_hint to find the right word index. No point in looping
+ * twice in find_next_zero_bit() for that case.
+ */
+ if (sb->round_robin)
+ alloc_hint = SB_NR_TO_BIT(sb, alloc_hint);
+ else
+ alloc_hint = 0;
+
+ return sbitmap_find_bit(sb, UINT_MAX, index, alloc_hint,
+ !sb->round_robin);
+}
+
int sbitmap_get(struct sbitmap *sb)
{
int nr;
@@ -241,31 +258,12 @@ static int __sbitmap_get_shallow(struct sbitmap *sb,
unsigned int alloc_hint,
unsigned long shallow_depth)
{
- unsigned int i, index;
- int nr = -1;
+ unsigned int index;
index = SB_NR_TO_INDEX(sb, alloc_hint);
alloc_hint = SB_NR_TO_BIT(sb, alloc_hint);
- for (i = 0; i < sb->map_nr; i++) {
- nr = sbitmap_find_bit_in_word(&sb->map[index],
- min_t(unsigned int,
- __map_depth(sb, index),
- shallow_depth),
- alloc_hint, true);
-
- if (nr != -1) {
- nr += index << sb->shift;
- break;
- }
-
- /* Jump to next index. */
- alloc_hint = 0;
- if (++index >= sb->map_nr)
- index = 0;
- }
-
- return nr;
+ return sbitmap_find_bit(sb, shallow_depth, index, alloc_hint, true);
}
int sbitmap_get_shallow(struct sbitmap *sb, unsigned long shallow_depth)
--
2.30.0
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-01 4:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-01 4:54 [PATCH 0/5] A few cleanup and bugfix patches for sbitmap Kemeng Shi
2022-12-01 4:54 ` [PATCH 1/5] sbitmap: don't consume nr for inactive waitqueue to avoid lost wakeups Kemeng Shi
2022-12-01 7:21 ` Kemeng Shi
2022-12-02 0:58 ` Jens Axboe
2022-12-02 2:34 ` Kemeng Shi
2022-12-01 13:32 ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2022-12-02 0:57 ` Kemeng Shi
2022-12-01 4:54 ` [PATCH 2/5] sbitmap: remove unnecessary calculation of alloc_hint in __sbitmap_get_shallow Kemeng Shi
2022-12-01 4:54 ` [PATCH 3/5] sbitmap: remove redundant check in __sbitmap_queue_get_batch Kemeng Shi
2022-12-01 4:54 ` [PATCH 4/5] sbitmap: rewrite sbitmap_find_bit_in_index to reduce repeat code Kemeng Shi
2022-12-01 4:54 ` Kemeng Shi [this message]
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=20221201045408.21908-6-shikemeng@huawei.com \
--to=shikemeng@huawei.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linfeilong@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liuzhiqiang@huawei.com \
--cc=shikemeng@huaweicloud.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