From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Yafang Shao <loaor.shao@gmail.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 next 4/5] Optimise decode_cpu() and per_cpu_ptr()
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2026 23:01:59 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260306230159.7399d786@pumpkin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260306225150.93178-5-david.laight.linux@gmail.com>
On Fri, 6 Mar 2026 22:51:49 +0000
david.laight.linux@gmail.com wrote:
Apologies to Yafang for mistyping his address...
> From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>
>
> Changing the 'cpu number' variables to 'unsigned int' generates
> slightly better code (and the values can never be negative).
>
> More specifically gcc knows that decrementing the 'encoded' value
> zeros the high 32bits (on sane 64bit architectures) so that it doesn't
> need to zero/sign extend the value to index __per_cpu_offset[].
>
> Not massive but saves two instructions.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>
> ---
>
> Proposed by Linus.
> Part of a discussion from v1 about whether removing the offset would help.
>
> kernel/locking/osq_lock.c | 18 +++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> index 5dd7e08d4fda..0619691e2756 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
> struct optimistic_spin_node {
> struct optimistic_spin_node *next;
> int locked; /* 1 if lock acquired */
> - int prev_cpu; /* encoded CPU # + 1 value */
> + unsigned int prev_cpu; /* encoded CPU # + 1 value */
> };
>
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct optimistic_spin_node, osq_node);
> @@ -24,19 +24,19 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct optimistic_spin_node, osq_node);
> * We use the value 0 to represent "no CPU", thus the encoded value
> * will be the CPU number incremented by 1.
> */
> -static inline int encode_cpu(int cpu_nr)
> +static inline unsigned int encode_cpu(unsigned int cpu_nr)
> {
> return cpu_nr + 1;
> }
>
> -static inline int prev_cpu_nr(struct optimistic_spin_node *node)
> +static inline unsigned int prev_cpu_nr(struct optimistic_spin_node *node)
> {
> return READ_ONCE(node->prev_cpu) - 1;
> }
>
> -static inline struct optimistic_spin_node *decode_cpu(int encoded_cpu_val)
> +static inline struct optimistic_spin_node *decode_cpu(unsigned int encoded_cpu_val)
> {
> - int cpu_nr = encoded_cpu_val - 1;
> + unsigned int cpu_nr = encoded_cpu_val - 1;
>
> return per_cpu_ptr(&osq_node, cpu_nr);
> }
> @@ -53,9 +53,9 @@ static inline struct optimistic_spin_node *decode_cpu(int encoded_cpu_val)
> static inline struct optimistic_spin_node *
> osq_wait_next(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock,
> struct optimistic_spin_node *node,
> - int old_cpu)
> + unsigned int old_cpu)
> {
> - int curr = encode_cpu(smp_processor_id());
> + unsigned int curr = encode_cpu(smp_processor_id());
>
> for (;;) {
> if (atomic_read(&lock->tail) == curr &&
> @@ -94,8 +94,8 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
> {
> struct optimistic_spin_node *node = this_cpu_ptr(&osq_node);
> struct optimistic_spin_node *prev, *next;
> - int curr = encode_cpu(smp_processor_id());
> - int prev_cpu;
> + unsigned int curr = encode_cpu(smp_processor_id());
> + unsigned int prev_cpu;
>
> node->next = NULL;
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-06 23:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-06 22:51 [PATCH v3 next 0/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimisations to osq_lock code david.laight.linux
2026-03-06 22:51 ` [PATCH v3 next 1/5] Only clear node->locked in the slow osq_lock() path david.laight.linux
2026-03-06 23:01 ` David Laight
2026-03-06 22:51 ` [PATCH v3 next 2/5] Optimise vcpu_is_preempted() check david.laight.linux
2026-03-06 23:01 ` David Laight
2026-03-06 23:03 ` David Laight
2026-03-06 22:51 ` [PATCH v3 next 3/5] Use node->prev_cpu instead of saving node->prev david.laight.linux
2026-03-06 23:01 ` David Laight
2026-03-06 23:03 ` David Laight
2026-03-06 22:51 ` [PATCH v3 next 4/5] Optimise decode_cpu() and per_cpu_ptr() david.laight.linux
2026-03-06 23:01 ` David Laight [this message]
2026-03-06 23:03 ` David Laight
2026-03-06 22:51 ` [PATCH v3 next 5/5] Avoid writing to node->next in the osq_lock() fast path david.laight.linux
2026-03-06 23:04 ` David Laight
2026-03-07 0:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-03-07 11:32 ` David Laight
2026-03-11 19:27 ` Waiman Long
2026-03-11 19:40 ` Waiman Long
2026-03-11 21:50 ` David Laight
2026-03-06 22:59 ` [PATCH v3 next 0/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimisations to osq_lock code David Laight
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=20260306230159.7399d786@pumpkin \
--to=david.laight.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=boqun@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=loaor.shao@gmail.com \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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