Linux SCSI subsystem development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>
To: Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>, Michael Reed <mdr@sgi.com>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Saurabh Singh Sengar <ssengar@microsoft.com>,
	Praveen Kumar <kumarpraveen@linux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: qla1280: Replace arithmetic addition by bitwise OR
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2023 16:11:58 +0100 (CET)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2302121611010.9268@hadrien> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y+kA1j10JCsLG9mN@ubun2204.myguest.virtualbox.org>



On Sun, 12 Feb 2023, Deepak R Varma wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 03:25:03PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On 2/7/23 03:54, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > > When adding two bit-field mask values, an OR operation offers higher
> > > performance over an arithmetic operation. So, convert such addition to
> > > an OR based expression.
> >
> > Where is the evidence that supports this claim? On the following page I read
> > that there is no performance difference when using a modern CPU: https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/75811/why-is-addition-as-fast-as-bit-wise-operations-in-modern-processors
> >
>
> Hello Bart,
> You are correct. Modern CPU designs have improved addition and the performance
> is at par with the bitwise operation. The document I had read earlier mentioned
> a performance improvement for old CPUs and microprocessors, which today is not
> the case. Thank you for sharing the link.
>
> > > Issue identified using orplus.cocci semantic patch script.
> >
> > Where is that script located? Can it be deleted such that submission of
> > patches similar to this patch stops?
>
> I have added Julia to this email to understand how to best use this semantic
> patch. I already discussed with her on improving the Semantic patch such that it
> doesn't suggest making change when constants are involved.

FWIW, the semantic patch was never motivated by efficiency, but rather
with the goal of making the code more understandable.

julia

  reply	other threads:[~2023-02-12 15:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-02-07 11:54 [PATCH] scsi: qla1280: Replace arithmetic addition by bitwise OR Deepak R Varma
2023-02-11 23:25 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-02-12 15:08   ` Deepak R Varma
2023-02-12 15:11     ` Julia Lawall [this message]
2023-02-12 15:25       ` Deepak R Varma
2023-02-12 16:15         ` Julia Lawall

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=alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2302121611010.9268@hadrien \
    --to=julia.lawall@inria.fr \
    --cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
    --cc=drv@mailo.com \
    --cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=kumarpraveen@linux.microsoft.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=mdr@sgi.com \
    --cc=ssengar@microsoft.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