[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YZv1/vKe46jmRMJa@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 21:56:46 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc: "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Jiri Kosina <trivial@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] bitops: Add single_bit_set()
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 09:54:14AM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 02:57:27PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 12:42:21PM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> > > On 11/22/21 13:28, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 01:03:25PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > > >> There are cases when it is useful to check a bit-mask has only one bit
> > > >> set. Add a generic helper for it instead of baking own one for each
> > > >> user.
> >
> > > > So, you decided to reinvent hamming weight...
> > > > Please, drop this patch and use corresponding hweight() call.
> >
> > > Thanks Andy.
> > >
> > > There are few differences to hamming weight here. We scan only given
> > > amount of bits - and we will end scanning immediately when we hit second
> > > set bit. Oh, and obviously we only return information whether there is
> > > exactly one bit set. So no, this is not hamming weight().
> >
> > What do you mean by this?
> >
> > hweight() will return you the number of the non-zero elements in the set.
> > In application to boolean based arrays it means the number of bits that
> > are set. Obviously, the condition `hweight() == 1` is what you are looking
> > for.
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> I think, Matti means earlier return when part of bitmap counts set
> bits to a greater nubmer, and we can skip the rest. Right, Matti?
>
> I agree that for Matti's usecase it's useless because 32-bit int is small,
> and hweight() would count set bits with a single machine instruction. (And
> it should be hweight32(), not bitmap_weight() in this case.)
>
> But in general, it might be useful for long bitmaps.
>
> The more complete way of doing this would be adding a new set of
> functions: bitmap_weight_{eq,neq,gt,le}
>
> I'm looking at how bitmap_weight is used in the kernel and see
> quite a lot of places where this optimization may take place. For
> example otx2_remove_flow() in drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c:
>
> if (bitmap_weight(&flow_cfg->dmacflt_bmap,
> flow_cfg->dmacflt_max_flows) == 1)
> otx2_update_rem_pfmac(pfvf, DMAC_ADDR_DEL);
>
> may be replaced with:
>
> if (bitmap_weight_eq(&flow_cfg->dmacflt_bmap, flow_cfg->dmacflt_max_flows, 1)
> otx2_update_rem_pfmac(pfvf, DMAC_ADDR_DEL);
>
> Most of that places are in drivers however, and the length of bitmaps
> there is typically small, so that there's no chance to get any
> measurable performance improvement.
>
> There is always a chance that we have opencoded bitmap_weight_eq()
> et all. If we add these API, it might help people wright better code.
>
> What do you think?
Before answering this I would like to see how hweight() is currently being used
in the kernel against bitmaps. Like histogram collection
comparison number number of usages
variadic X
1 Y
2 Z
... ...
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists