From: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@mailshack.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@fastmail.fm>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [RFC/PATCH] x86: Optimize find_next_(zero_)bit for small constant-size bitmaps
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:17:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080310231724.GA8370@mailshack.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080309205132.GA9021@elte.hu>
x86: Optimize find_next_(zero_)bit for small constant-size bitmaps
NOTE: This is not well tested. I'm also quite unsure if this makes the
pre-processor situation any better.
On an i386 defconfig (the x86#testing one), the size of vmlinux hardly
changes with this applied. I have observed only four places where this
optimization avoids a call into find_next_bit:
In the functions return_unused_surplus_pages, alloc_fresh_huge_page,
and adjust_pool_surplus, this patch avoids a call for a 1-bit bitmap.
In __next_cpu a call is avoided for a 32-bit bitmap. That's it.
On x86_64 I observed the following (I did not look closely yet, though).
Current #testing defconfig:
146 x bsf, 27 x find_next_*bit
text data bss dec hex filename
5392637 846592 724424 6963653 6a41c5 vmlinux
After removing the x86_64 specific optimization for find_next_*bit:
94 x bsf, 79 x find_next_*bit
text data bss dec hex filename
5392358 846592 724424 6963374 6a40ae vmlinux
After this patch (making the optimization generic):
146 x bsf, 27 x find_next_*bit
text data bss dec hex filename
5392396 846592 724424 6963412 6a40d4 vmlinux
Signed-off-by: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@fastmail.fm>
---
> ok - but this needs to be solved in a cleaner way. That build-time
> optimization needs to be pushed into generic code so that 32-bit x86 and
> other architectures can make use of it as well. The lib/find_next_bit.c
> functions should be named __find_next_bit() or so.
>
> Ingo
I think this is what you had in mind? It seems to work.
Alternative implementation ideas? Comments? In particular: does
this break non-x86?
Greetings,
Alexander
include/asm-x86/bitops.h | 4 +-
include/asm-x86/bitops_64.h | 10 -------
include/linux/bitops.h | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
lib/find_next_bit.c | 10 +++----
4 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/asm-x86/bitops.h b/include/asm-x86/bitops.h
index 7fbf93a..cbbe329 100644
--- a/include/asm-x86/bitops.h
+++ b/include/asm-x86/bitops.h
@@ -312,9 +312,9 @@ static int test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr);
#undef ADDR
-unsigned long find_next_bit(const unsigned long *addr,
+unsigned long __find_next_bit(const unsigned long *addr,
unsigned long size, unsigned long offset);
-unsigned long find_next_zero_bit(const unsigned long *addr,
+unsigned long __find_next_zero_bit(const unsigned long *addr,
unsigned long size, unsigned long offset);
diff --git a/include/asm-x86/bitops_64.h b/include/asm-x86/bitops_64.h
index 40bf0f8..87e1a17 100644
--- a/include/asm-x86/bitops_64.h
+++ b/include/asm-x86/bitops_64.h
@@ -20,21 +20,11 @@ static inline long __scanbit(unsigned long val, unsigned long max)
(__scanbit(*(unsigned long *)addr,(size))) : \
find_first_bit(addr,size)))
-#define find_next_bit(addr,size,off) \
-((__builtin_constant_p(size) && (size) <= BITS_PER_LONG ? \
- ((off) + (__scanbit((*(unsigned long *)addr) >> (off),(size)-(off)))) : \
- find_next_bit(addr,size,off)))
-
#define find_first_zero_bit(addr,size) \
((__builtin_constant_p(size) && (size) <= BITS_PER_LONG ? \
(__scanbit(~*(unsigned long *)addr,(size))) : \
find_first_zero_bit(addr,size)))
-#define find_next_zero_bit(addr,size,off) \
-((__builtin_constant_p(size) && (size) <= BITS_PER_LONG ? \
- ((off)+(__scanbit(~(((*(unsigned long *)addr)) >> (off)),(size)-(off)))) : \
- find_next_zero_bit(addr,size,off)))
-
static inline void set_bit_string(unsigned long *bitmap, unsigned long i,
int len)
{
diff --git a/include/linux/bitops.h b/include/linux/bitops.h
index 69c1edb..ba78ca1 100644
--- a/include/linux/bitops.h
+++ b/include/linux/bitops.h
@@ -72,4 +72,64 @@ static inline unsigned fls_long(unsigned long l)
return fls64(l);
}
+#ifdef __KERNEL__
+#ifdef CONFIG_GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT
+unsigned long __find_next_bit(const unsigned long *addr,
+ unsigned long size, unsigned long offset);
+
+static __always_inline unsigned long
+find_next_bit(const unsigned long *addr, unsigned long size,
+ unsigned long offset)
+{
+ unsigned long value;
+
+ /* Here we would like to use a version of ffs that */
+ /* returns BITS_PER_LONG if its argument is zero. */
+ if (__builtin_constant_p(size) && (size == BITS_PER_LONG)) {
+ value = (*addr) & ((~0ul) << offset);
+ return (value == 0) ? BITS_PER_LONG : __ffs(value);
+ }
+
+ /* Less than BITS_PER_LONG: put in sentinel, then __ffs */
+ /* Here we would like to have a __set_bit/__ffs combo */
+ if (__builtin_constant_p(size) && (size < BITS_PER_LONG)) {
+ value = (*addr) & ((~0ul) << offset);
+ value |= (1ul << size);
+ return __ffs(value);
+ }
+
+ /* size not constant or too big */
+ return __find_next_bit(addr, size, offset);
+}
+
+unsigned long __find_next_zero_bit(const unsigned long *addr,
+ unsigned long size, unsigned long offset);
+
+static __always_inline unsigned long
+find_next_zero_bit(const unsigned long *addr, unsigned long size,
+ unsigned long offset)
+{
+ unsigned long value;
+
+ /* Here we would like to use a version of ffs that */
+ /* returns BITS_PER_LONG if its argument is zero. */
+ if (__builtin_constant_p(size) && (size == BITS_PER_LONG)) {
+ value = (~(*addr)) & ((~0ul) << offset);
+ return (value == 0) ? BITS_PER_LONG : __ffs(value);
+ }
+
+ /* Less than BITS_PER_LONG: put in sentinel, then __ffs */
+ /* Here we would like to have a __set_bit/__ffs combo. */
+ if (__builtin_constant_p(size) && (size < BITS_PER_LONG)) {
+ value = (~(*addr)) & ((~0ul) << offset);
+ value |= (1ul << size);
+ return __ffs(value);
+ }
+
+ /* size not constant or too big */
+ return __find_next_zero_bit(addr, size, offset);
+}
+
+#endif /* CONFIG_GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT */
+#endif /* __KERNEL__ */
#endif
diff --git a/lib/find_next_bit.c b/lib/find_next_bit.c
index 5820e07..5249f4a 100644
--- a/lib/find_next_bit.c
+++ b/lib/find_next_bit.c
@@ -15,8 +15,6 @@
#include <asm/byteorder.h>
#define BITOP_WORD(nr) ((nr) / BITS_PER_LONG)
-#undef find_next_bit
-#undef find_next_zero_bit
/**
* find_next_bit - find the next set bit in a memory region
@@ -24,8 +22,8 @@
* @offset: The bitnumber to start searching at
* @size: The maximum size to search
*/
-unsigned long find_next_bit(const unsigned long *addr, unsigned long size,
- unsigned long offset)
+unsigned long __find_next_bit(const unsigned long *addr,
+ unsigned long size, unsigned long offset)
{
const unsigned long *p = addr + BITOP_WORD(offset);
unsigned long result = offset & ~(BITS_PER_LONG-1);
@@ -69,8 +67,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(find_next_bit);
* This implementation of find_{first,next}_zero_bit was stolen from
* Linus' asm-alpha/bitops.h.
*/
-unsigned long find_next_zero_bit(const unsigned long *addr, unsigned long size,
- unsigned long offset)
+unsigned long __find_next_zero_bit(const unsigned long *addr,
+ unsigned long size, unsigned long offset)
{
const unsigned long *p = addr + BITOP_WORD(offset);
unsigned long result = offset & ~(BITS_PER_LONG-1);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-10 23:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-09 20:01 [PATCH] x86: Change x86 to use generic find_next_bit Alexander van Heukelum
2008-03-09 20:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-09 21:03 ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-09 21:32 ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-09 21:13 ` Alexander van Heukelum
2008-03-10 6:29 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-09 20:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-09 20:31 ` Alexander van Heukelum
2008-03-09 20:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-09 21:29 ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-10 23:17 ` Alexander van Heukelum [this message]
2008-03-11 9:56 ` [RFC/PATCH] x86: Optimize find_next_(zero_)bit for small constant-size bitmaps Ingo Molnar
2008-03-11 15:17 ` [PATCH] " Alexander van Heukelum
2008-03-11 15:22 ` [RFC] non-x86: " Alexander van Heukelum
2008-03-11 15:23 ` [PATCH] x86: " Ingo Molnar
2008-03-09 20:28 ` [PATCH] x86: Change x86 to use generic find_next_bit Andi Kleen
2008-03-09 21:31 ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-13 12:44 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-03-13 14:27 ` Alexander van Heukelum
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=20080310231724.GA8370@mailshack.com \
--to=heukelum@mailshack.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=heukelum@fastmail.fm \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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