[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM7-yPSWvsySweXSmbvW2hucce8T7BOSkz-eF5t7PJE6zv5tjg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 03:27:33 +0900
From: Yun Levi <ppbuk5246@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, dushistov@...l.ru,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>,
richard.weiyang@...ux.alibaba.com, joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com,
skalluru@...vell.com, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:36 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 09:26:05AM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 3:50 AM Yun Levi <ppbuk5246@...il.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > I think this patch has some good catches. We definitely need to implement
> > find_last_zero_bit(), as it is used by fs/ufs, and their local
> > implementation is not optimal.
>
> Side note: speaking of performance, any plans to fix for_each_*_bit*() for
> cases when the nbits is known to be <= BITS_PER_LONG?
>
> Now it makes an awful code generation (something like few hundred bytes of
> code).
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>
> Side note: speaking of performance, any plans to fix for_each_*_bit*() for
> cases when the nbits is known to be <= BITS_PER_LONG?
Frankly Speaking, I don't have an idea in now.....
Could you share your idea or wisdom?
Thanks.
Levi.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists