public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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, msalter@redhat.com,
	takahiro.akashi@linaro.org, tgraf@suug.ch,
	valentinrothberg@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] lib: find_*_bit reimplementation
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 02:05:11 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <54DBE027.3010209@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87wq3rs3lp.fsf@rasmusvillemoes.dk>


On 09.02.2015 14:53, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> [Yury, please do remember to Cc everyone who has previously
> participated]
>
> On Mon, Feb 09 2015, "George Spelvin" <linux@horizon.com> wrote:
>
>> Two more comments on the code.  Two minor, but one that
>> seems like a bug, so for now, it's
>>
>> Nacked-by: George Spelvin <linux@horizon.com> 
>>
>> Specifically, it seems like find_last_bit used to ignore trailing
>> garbage in the bitmap, but now will stop searching if the last word
>> contains some set bits not within size.
> True, though see below.
>
>> The minor one is that I don't think the first-word masking needs to
>> be conditional.  The general code works fine if the start is aligned
>> (HIGH_BITS_MASK just generates an all-ones mask), is quite quick, and
>> saves a test & conditional branch.
>>
> I also noted that during the first review, but when I tried to compile
> it gcc actually generated slightly worse code, so I decided not to
> comment on it. I don't have a strong preference either way, though.
>
>> Previously, the last word was masked, so bits beyond "size" were ignored.
>> With the revised code, something like find_last_bit(array, 96) will return 96
>> if array[1] >> 32 is non-zero, even if array[1] & 0xffffffff is zero.
>>
>> Looking through the callers, I haven't found a case where this matters yet
>> so perhaps it's a safe optimization, but this really needs to be more
>> clearly documented if intentional.
>>
>> If no change was desired, I'd think a good way to do this would be:
>>
>>  unsigned long find_last_bit(const unsigned long *addr, unsigned long size)
>>  {
>> 	size_t idx = DIV_ROUND_UP(size, BITS_PER_LONG);
>>  	unsigned long tmp = addr[--idx];
>>
>> 	tmp &= (2UL << (size % BITS_PER_LONG)) - 1;	/* Mask last word */
>>
>> 	while (!tmp) {
>> 		if (!idx)
>> 			return size;
>>  		tmp = addr[--idx];
>> 	}
>> 	return idx * BITS_PER_LONG + __fls(tmp);
>> }
> How should that work? If size is for example 1, the mask evaluates to 3UL,
> while what is needed is 1UL. If size is aligned, the mask becomes 1UL,
> which is also not right.
>
> Also, I think it is best to handle size==0 appropriately, meaning that
> one cannot dereference addr in any way (and certainly not addr[-1]).
>
> So how about
>
> unsigned long find_last_bit(const unsigned long *addr, unsigned long size)
> {
> 	size_t idx = DIV_ROUND_UP(size, BITS_PER_LONG);
> 	unsigned long mask = LAST_WORD_MASK(size);
>
> 	while (idx--) {
> 		unsigned long val = addr[idx] & mask;
> 		if (val)
> 			return idx * BITS_PER_LONG + __fls(val);
> 		mask = ~0ul;
> 	}
> 	return size;
> }
>
> Rasmus
Rasmus, your version has ANDing by mask, and resetting the mask at each iteration
of main loop. I think we can avoid it. What do you think on next?

unsigned long find_last_bit(const unsigned long *addr, unsigned long size)
{
        size_t idx;
        unsigned long tmp;

        if (!size)
                return 0;

        idx = DIV_ROUND_UP(size, BITS_PER_LONG) - 1;
        tmp = addr[idx] & LAST_WORD_MASK(size);

        while (!tmp) {
                if (!idx--)
                        return size;
                tmp = addr[idx];
        }
        return idx * BITS_PER_LONG + __fls(tmp);
}

Yury

  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-02-11 23:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-02-08 14:10 [PATCH v3 0/3] lib: find_*_bit reimplementation Yury Norov
2015-02-08 14:10 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] " Yury Norov
2015-02-08 18:48   ` George Spelvin
2015-02-09  8:32   ` George Spelvin
2015-02-09 11:53     ` Rasmus Villemoes
2015-02-09 16:45       ` George Spelvin
2015-02-11 22:14         ` Rasmus Villemoes
2015-02-11 23:05       ` Yury [this message]
2015-02-12  8:15         ` George Spelvin
2015-02-12  9:58           ` Rasmus Villemoes
2015-02-12 23:46             ` George Spelvin
2015-02-13 10:13               ` Rasmus Villemoes
2015-02-08 14:10 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] lib: move find_last_bit to lib/find_next_bit.c Yury Norov
2015-02-08 14:10 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] lib: rename lib/find_next_bit.c to lib/find_bit.c Yury Norov
2015-02-17  2:35 ` [PATCH v4 0/3] lib: find_*_bit reimplementation Yury Norov
2015-02-17  2:35   ` [PATCH v4 1/3] " Yury Norov
2015-02-18 17:57     ` Rasmus Villemoes
2015-02-17  2:35   ` [PATCH v4 2/3] lib: move find_last_bit to lib/find_next_bit.c Yury Norov
2015-02-17  2:35   ` [PATCH v4 3/3] lib: rename lib/find_next_bit.c to lib/find_bit.c Yury Norov
2015-02-22 17:24 ` [PATCH v5 0/3] lib: find_*_bit reimplementation Yury Norov
2015-02-22 17:24   ` [PATCH v5 1/3] " Yury Norov
2015-02-23 21:50     ` Rasmus Villemoes
2015-02-24  0:29       ` George Spelvin
2015-02-22 17:24   ` [PATCH v5 2/3] lib: move find_last_bit to lib/find_next_bit.c Yury Norov
2015-02-22 17:24   ` [PATCH v5 3/3] lib: rename lib/find_next_bit.c to lib/find_bit.c Yury Norov
2015-02-24  0:40   ` [PATCH v5 0/3] lib: find_*_bit reimplementation Andrew Morton
2015-03-08 18:17     ` Yury Norov
     [not found] <CAAH8bW-mk0kk-GKDNny6hsjrbcjwdcAacsF_DEaXmNG==hXhRw@mail.gmail.com>
2015-02-13 21:09 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] " George Spelvin

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=54DBE027.3010209@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 \
    /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