From: Yury <yury.norov@gmail.com>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
George Spelvin <linux@horizon.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, chris@chris-wilson.co.uk,
davem@davemloft.net, dborkman@redhat.com,
hannes@stressinduktion.org, klimov.linux@gmail.com,
laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
msalter@redhat.com, takahiro.akashi@linaro.org, tgraf@suug.ch,
valentinrothberg@gmail.com, Yury Norov <y.norov@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] lib: find_*_bit reimplementation
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 02:45:18 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54D2AF0E.30500@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87twz4pj44.fsf@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
On 02.02.2015 15:56, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02 2015, "George Spelvin" <linux@horizon.com> wrote:
>
>> Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> wrote:
>>> ... and this be part of _find_next_bit? Can find_next_bit not be simply
>>> 'return _find_next_bit(addr, size, offset, 1);', and similarly for
>>> find_next_zero_bit? Btw., passing true and false for the boolean
>>> parameter may be a little clearer.
>> Looking at the generated code, it would be better to replace the boolean
>> parameter with 0ul or ~0ul and XOR with it. The same number of registers,
>> and saves a conditional branch.
> Nice trick. When I compiled it, gcc inlined _find_next_bit into both its
> callers, making the conditional go away completely. That was with gcc
> 4.7. When I try with 5.0, I do see _find_next_bit being compiled
> separately.
>
> With the proposed change, 4.7 also makes find_next{,_zero}_bit wrappers
> for _find_next_bit, further reducing the total size, which is a good
> thing. And, if some other version decides to still inline it, it
> should then know how to optimize the xor with 0ul or ~0ul just as well
> as when the conditional was folded away.
>
> Yury, please also incorporate this in the next round.
>
> Rasmus
>
Ok.
What are you thinking about joining _find_next_bit and _find_next_bit_le?
They really differ in 2 lines. It's generally good to remove duplications,
and it may decrease text size for big-endian machines. But it definitely
doesn't make code easier for reading, and maybe affects performance
after the optimization suggested by George...
(I didn't test it yet)
29 #if !defined(find_next_bit) || !defined(find_next_zero_bit) \
30 || (defined(BIG_ENDIAN) && \
31 (!defined(find_next_bit_le) || !defined(find_next_zero_bit_le)))
32 static unsigned long _find_next_bit(const unsigned long *addr,
33 unsigned long nbits, unsigned long start, unsigned long flags)
34 {
35 unsigned long xor_mask = (flags & SET) ? 0UL : ULONG_MAX;
36 unsigned long tmp = addr[start / BITS_PER_LONG] ^ xor_mask;
37
38 /* Handle 1st word. */
39 if (!IS_ALIGNED(start, BITS_PER_LONG)) {
40 #ifdef BIG_ENDIAN
41 if (flags & LE)
42 tmp &= ext2_swab(HIGH_BITS_MASK(start % BITS_PER_LONG));
43 else
44 #endif
45 tmp &= HIGH_BITS_MASK(start % BITS_PER_LONG);
46
47 start = round_down(start, BITS_PER_LONG);
48 }
49
50 while (!tmp) {
51 start += BITS_PER_LONG;
52 if (start >= nbits)
53 return nbits;
54
55 tmp = addr[start / BITS_PER_LONG] ^ xor_mask;
56 }
57
58 #ifdef BIG_ENDIAN
59 if (flags & LE)
60 return start + __ffs(ext2_swab(tmp));
61
62 #endif
63 return start + __ffs(tmp);
64 }
65 #endif
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-04 23:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-31 20:58 [PATCH v2 1/3] lib: find_*_bit reimplementation yury.norov
2015-01-31 20:58 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] lib: move find_last_bit to lib/find_next_bit.c yury.norov
2015-01-31 20:58 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] lib: rename lib/find_next_bit.c to lib/find_bit.c yury.norov
2015-02-02 11:09 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2015-02-02 3:17 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] lib: find_*_bit reimplementation George Spelvin
2015-02-04 23:07 ` Yury
2015-02-02 10:43 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2015-02-02 11:47 ` George Spelvin
2015-02-02 12:56 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2015-02-04 23:45 ` Yury [this message]
2015-02-05 14:51 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2015-02-04 22:52 ` Yury
2015-02-05 15:01 ` Rasmus Villemoes
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-02-05 23:07 Alexey Klimov
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=54D2AF0E.30500@gmail.com \
--to=yury.norov@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dborkman@redhat.com \
--cc=hannes@stressinduktion.org \
--cc=klimov.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@horizon.com \
--cc=linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk \
--cc=msalter@redhat.com \
--cc=takahiro.akashi@linaro.org \
--cc=tgraf@suug.ch \
--cc=valentinrothberg@gmail.com \
--cc=y.norov@samsung.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