[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 23:14:21 -0500
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
"'linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"'peterz@...radead.org'" <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "'mingo@...hat.com'" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"'will@...nel.org'" <will@...nel.org>,
"'boqun.feng@...il.com'" <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
'Linus Torvalds' <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"'virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org'"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
'Zeng Heng' <zengheng4@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next v2 5/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimise decode_cpu() and
per_cpu_ptr().
On 12/31/23 16:55, David Laight wrote:
> per_cpu_ptr() indexes __per_cpu_offset[] with the cpu number.
> This requires the cpu number be 64bit.
> However the value is osq_lock() comes from a 32bit xchg() and there
> isn't a way of telling gcc the high bits are zero (they are) so
> there will always be an instruction to clear the high bits.
>
> The cpu number is also offset by one (to make the initialiser 0)
> It seems to be impossible to get gcc to convert __per_cpu_offset[cpu_p1 - 1]
> into (__per_cpu_offset - 1)[cpu_p1] (transferring the offset to the address).
>
> Converting the cpu number to 32bit unsigned prior to the decrement means
> that gcc knows the decrement has set the high bits to zero and doesn't
> add a register-register move (or cltq) to zero/sign extend the value.
>
> Not massive but saves two instructions.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Laight <david.laight@...lab.com>
> ---
> kernel/locking/osq_lock.c | 6 ++----
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> index 35bb99e96697..37a4fa872989 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> @@ -29,11 +29,9 @@ static inline int encode_cpu(int cpu_nr)
> return cpu_nr + 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;
> -
> - return per_cpu_ptr(&osq_node, cpu_nr);
> + return per_cpu_ptr(&osq_node, encoded_cpu_val - 1);
> }
>
> /*
You really like micro-optimization.
Anyway,
Reviewed-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists