linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Optimize bitmap

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAC5umyjP9DLVJXvpVEwOOS6EK47zT+zYabyTCDLFSmNis5E8QA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 14 May 2012 06:50:15 +0900
From:	Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optimize bitmap_weight

2012/5/12 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>:
> On Fri, 11 May 2012 23:10:14 +0900
> Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> The current implementation of bitmap_weight simply evaluates the
>> population count for each long word of the array, and adds.
>>
>> The subsection "Counting 1-bits in an Array" in the revisions of
>> the book 'Hacker's Delight' explains more superior methods than
>> the naive method.
>>
>> http://www.hackersdelight.org/revisions.pdf
>> http://www.hackersdelight.org/HDcode/newCode/pop_arrayHS.c.txt
>>
>> My benchmark results on Intel Core i3 CPU with 32-bit kernel
>> showed 50% faster for 8192 bits bitmap.  However, it is not faster
>> for small bitmap (< BITS_PER_LONG * 8) than the naive method.
>> So if the bitmap size is known to be small at compile time,
>> use the naive method.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>  extern void bitmap_clear(unsigned long *map, int start, int nr);
>> @@ -277,7 +278,9 @@ static inline int bitmap_weight(const unsigned long *src, int nbits)
>>  {
>>       if (small_const_nbits(nbits))
>>               return hweight_long(*src & BITMAP_LAST_WORD_MASK(nbits));
>
> Why do we require a constant_p `nbits' for this case?
>
>> -     return __bitmap_weight(src, nbits);
>> +     else if (__builtin_constant_p(nbits) && (nbits) < BITS_PER_LONG * 8)
>> +             return __bitmap_weight(src, nbits);
>> +     return __bitmap_weight_fast(src, nbits);
>>  }
>
> BITS_PER_LONG*8 sounds like a large bitmap: 256 or 512 entries.  Will
> the kernel call __bitmap_weight_fast() sufficiently often to make this
> extra code worth merging?
>

I roughly checked the call sites of bitmap_weight() and picked up some
outstanding usages below.

Some filesystems (udf, omfs, ntfs, and hpfs) use bitmap_weight() to
the block size bytes region in statfs() path.

num_online_cpus() and the variants are bitmap_weight() to the NR_CPUS
bitmap and num_online_nodes() and the variants are to the MAX_NUMNODES
bitmap.  So these bitmaps could be large on extremely large system.

bm_count_bits() in drivers/block/drbd/drbd_bitmap.c computes the
population count for multiple pages.  But it is currently open-coded
loops with hweight_long() which can be converted to bitmap_weight().

I consider introducing bitmap_weight_large() which is specialized for
the large bitmap instead of optimizing bitmap_weight() and replace the
call sites like above.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/