From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>,
"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@kernel.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de>,
"Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
x86@kernel.org, "Juergen Gross" <jgross@suse.com>,
"Boris Ostrovsky" <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
"Alexander Usyskin" <alexander.usyskin@intel.com>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Mateusz Jończyk" <mat.jonczyk@o2.pl>,
"Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org>,
"Ard Biesheuvel" <ardb@kernel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bitops/32: Convert variable_ffs() and fls() zero-case handling to C
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 20:13:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <81ed8b53-1a40-4777-ab87-4f4abe032dbc@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wig1E4B-e1_6=it1LfVQ64DJsVgO6f6Ytnbzm2qChbAdw@mail.gmail.com>
On 29/04/2025 7:05 pm, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 at 07:38, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> I tried that. (The thread started as a question around
>> __builtin_constant_p() but did grow to cover __builtin_ffs().)
> Maybe we could do something like
>
> #define ffs(x) \
> (statically_true((x) != 0) ? __ffs(x)+1 : __builtin_ffs(x))
>
> which uses our "statically_true()" helper that is actually fairly good
> at the whole "let the compiler tell us that it knows that value cannot
> be zero"
>
> I didn't check what code that generated, but I've seen gcc do well on
> that statically_true() thing in the past.
>
> Then we can just remove our current variable_ffs() thing entirely,
> because we now depend on our (good) __ffs() and the builtin being
> "good enough" for the bad case.
That would improve code generation for 32bit, but generally regress 64bit.
Preloading the destination register with -1 is better than the CMOV form
emitted by the builtin; BSF's habit of conditionally not writing the
destination register *is* a CMOV of sorts.
When I cleaned this up in Xen, there were several factors where I
thought improvements could be made.
Having both ffs() and __ffs(), where the latter is undefined in a common
case, is a trap waiting for an unwary programmer. I have no particular
love for ffs() being off-by-one from normal, but is well defined for all
inputs.
Also, leaving the constant folding to the arch-optimised form means that
it often gets forgotten. Therefore, I rearranged everything to have
this be common:
static always_inline attr_const unsigned int ffs(unsigned int x)
{
if ( __builtin_constant_p(x) )
return __builtin_ffs(x);
#ifdef arch_ffs
return arch_ffs(x);
#else
return generic_ffsl(x);
#endif
}
with most architectures implementing arch_ffs as:
#define arch_ffs(x) ((x) ? 1 + __builtin_ctz(x) : 0)
and x86 as:
static always_inline unsigned int arch_ffs(unsigned int x)
{
unsigned int r;
if ( __builtin_constant_p(x > 0) && x > 0 )
{
/*
* A common code pattern is:
*
* while ( bits )
* {
* bit = ffs(bits);
* ...
*
* and the optimiser really can work with the knowledge of x being
* non-zero without knowing it's exact value, in which case we don't
* need to compensate for BSF's corner cases. Otherwise...
*/
asm ( "bsf %[val], %[res]"
: [res] "=r" (r)
: [val] "rm" (x) );
}
else
{
/*
* ... the AMD manual states that BSF won't modify the destination
* register if x=0. The Intel manual states that the result is
* undefined, but the architects have said that the register is
* written back with it's old value (zero extended as normal).
*/
asm ( "bsf %[val], %[res]"
: [res] "=r" (r)
: [val] "rm" (x), "[res]" (-1) );
}
return r + 1;
}
#define arch_ffs arch_ffs
and finally, providing compatibility for the other forms as:
#define __ffs(x) (ffs(x) - 1)
The end result is fewer APIs to implement in arch-specific code, and the
removal of undefined behaviour.
That said, I don't envy anyone wanting to try and untangle this in
Linux, even if consensus were to agree on it as an approach.
~Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-29 19:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-25 14:15 [PATCH] [RFC] x86/cpu: rework instruction set selection Arnd Bergmann
2025-04-25 15:34 ` H. Peter Anvin
2025-04-25 16:13 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-04-25 20:15 ` H. Peter Anvin
2025-04-26 9:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2025-04-26 13:17 ` H. Peter Anvin
2025-04-26 18:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2025-04-27 0:35 ` H. Peter Anvin
2025-04-26 18:58 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-04-26 19:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2025-04-27 13:24 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-04-27 21:17 ` H. Peter Anvin
2025-04-26 19:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2025-04-26 19:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2025-04-26 23:47 ` H. Peter Anvin
2025-04-27 10:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2025-04-27 0:02 ` H. Peter Anvin
2025-04-27 19:17 ` Andrew Cooper
2025-04-27 19:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2025-04-27 21:14 ` H. Peter Anvin
2025-04-28 6:58 ` [PATCH] bitops/32: Convert variable_ffs() and fls() zero-case handling to C Ingo Molnar
2025-04-28 7:05 ` Ingo Molnar
2025-04-28 7:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2025-04-28 12:30 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-04-28 13:41 ` H. Peter Anvin
2025-04-28 16:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2025-04-29 10:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2025-04-29 14:32 ` H. Peter Anvin
2025-04-28 16:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2025-04-28 21:38 ` H. Peter Anvin
2025-04-29 0:12 ` Andrew Cooper
2025-04-29 2:00 ` H. Peter Anvin
2025-04-29 2:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2025-04-29 2:25 ` Andrew Cooper
2025-04-29 3:13 ` H. Peter Anvin
2025-04-29 14:38 ` Andrew Cooper
2025-04-29 18:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2025-04-29 19:13 ` Andrew Cooper [this message]
2025-04-29 20:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2025-04-29 21:23 ` H. Peter Anvin
2025-04-29 21:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2025-04-29 21:59 ` Andrew Cooper
2025-04-29 22:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2025-04-29 22:10 ` H. Peter Anvin
2025-04-29 22:22 ` Andrew Cooper
2025-04-29 22:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2025-04-27 9:50 ` [PATCH] [RFC] x86/cpu: rework instruction set selection Ingo Molnar
2025-04-30 21:54 ` 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=81ed8b53-1a40-4777-ab87-4f4abe032dbc@citrix.com \
--to=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=alexander.usyskin@intel.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=arnd@kernel.org \
--cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jgross@suse.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mat.jonczyk@o2.pl \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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