[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210830121249.2fgyvf47py2tz5s5@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 14:12:49 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@...me>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Alexey Klimov <aklimov@...hat.com>,
Andrea Merello <andrea.merello@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Brian Cain <bcain@...eaurora.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
Samuel Mendoza-Jonas <sam@...dozajonas.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/17] find: micro-optimize for_each_{set,clear}_bit()
On Thu 2021-08-26 14:09:55, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 03:57:13PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Sat 2021-08-14 14:17:07, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > The macros iterate thru all set/clear bits in a bitmap. They search a
> > > first bit using find_first_bit(), and the rest bits using find_next_bit().
> > >
> > > Since find_next_bit() is called shortly after find_first_bit(), we can
> > > save few lines of I-cache by not using find_first_bit().
> >
> > Is this only a speculation or does it fix a real performance problem?
> >
> > The macro is used like:
> >
> > for_each_set_bit(bit, addr, size) {
> > fn(bit);
> > }
> >
> > IMHO, the micro-opimization does not help when fn() is non-trivial.
>
> The effect is measurable:
>
> Start testing for_each_bit()
> for_each_set_bit: 15296 ns, 1000 iterations
> for_each_set_bit_from: 15225 ns, 1000 iterations
>
> Start testing for_each_bit() with cash flushing
> for_each_set_bit: 547626 ns, 1000 iterations
> for_each_set_bit_from: 497899 ns, 1000 iterations
>
> Refer this:
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org/msg356151.html
I see. The results look convincing on the first look.
But I am still not sure. This patch is basically contradicting many
other patches from this patchset:
+ 5th patch optimizes find_first_and_bit() and proves that it is
much faster:
Before (#define find_first_and_bit(...) find_next_and_bit(..., 0):
Start testing find_bit() with random-filled bitmap
[ 140.291468] find_first_and_bit: 46890919 ns, 32671 iterations
Start testing find_bit() with sparse bitmap
[ 140.295028] find_first_and_bit: 7103 ns, 1 iterations
After:
Start testing find_bit() with random-filled bitmap
[ 162.574907] find_first_and_bit: 25045813 ns, 32846 iterations
Start testing find_bit() with sparse bitmap
[ 162.578458] find_first_and_bit: 4900 ns, 1 iterations
=> saves 46% in random bitmap
saves 31% in sparse bitmap
+ 6th, 7th, and 9th patch makes the code use find_first_bit()
because it is faster than find_next_bit(mask, size, 0);
+ Now, 11th (this) patch replaces find_first_bit() with
find_next_bit(mask, size, 0) because find_first_bit()
makes things slower. It is suspicious at minimum.
By other words. The I-cache could safe 10% in one case.
But find_first_bit() might safe 46% in random case.
Does I-cache cost more than the faster code?
Or was for_each_set_bit() tested only with a bitmap
where find_first_bit() optimization did not help much?
How would for_each_set_bit() work with random bitmap?
How does it work with larger bitmaps?
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists