[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170608025556.GB20010@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:55:56 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] bitmap: Use memcmp optimisation in more situations
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 04:48:04AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Commit 7dd968163f ("bitmap: bitmap_equal memcmp optimization") was
> > rather more restrictive than necessary; we can use memcmp() to implement
> > bitmap_equal() as long as the number of bits can be proved to be a
> > multiple of 8. And architectures other than s390 may be able to make
> > good use of this optimisation.
>
> > - if (__builtin_constant_p(nbits) && (nbits % BITS_PER_LONG) == 0)
> > + if (__builtin_constant_p(nbits & 7) && IS_ALIGNED(nbits, 8))
> > return !memcmp(src1, src2, nbits / 8);
>
> I'm not sure this is a fully correct change.
> What exactly ' & 7' part does?
> For me looks like you may just drop it.
We only need to know if the bottom 3 bits are 0 to apply this optimisation.
For example, if we have a user which does this:
nbits = 8;
if (argle)
nbits += 8;
if (bitmap_equal(ptr1, ptr2, nbits))
blah();
then we can use memcmp() because gcc can deduce that the bottom 3 bits
are never set (try it! it works!). We don't need nbits as a whole to
be const.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists