From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/buffer.c: change buffer_busy() to use logical-OR
 expression
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 02:49:48 +0900
Message-ID: <1287856188.1681.48.camel@leonhard>
References: <1287853575-14190-1-git-send-email-namhyung@gmail.com>
	 <20101023172107.GQ19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20101023172107.GQ19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

2010-10-23 (=ED=86=A0), 18:21 +0100, Al Viro:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 02:06:15AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > Convert bitwise-OR operator to logical-OR in favor of short-circuit
> > evaluation. The end result would be same.
>=20
> It'll cost _more_.
>=20
> Think of it:
> 	v =3D atomic_read(...)
> 	w =3D bh->b_state
> 	w &=3D constant
> 	v |=3D w
> 	return v
> vs.
> 	v =3D atomic_read()
> 	branch to l if not equal to 0
> 	w =3D bh->b_state
> 	if w & constant is not 0, branch to l
> 	v =3D 0
> 	return v
> l:	v =3D 1
> 	return v
>=20
> That short-circuit won't win anything here.

I see. It adds expensive branch insns. I just checked that patched code
generated longer code, Cool. But what if I exchange the order of
evaluation, check the bitmask before atomic_read()? Isn't it helpful
either?

Thanks.


--=20
Regards,
Namhyung Kim