[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230315163549.295454-12-dhowells@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 16:35:45 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Subject: [PATCH v19 11/15] block: Fix bio_flagged() so that gcc can better optimise it
Fix bio_flagged() so that multiple instances of it, such as:
if (bio_flagged(bio, BIO_PAGE_REFFED) ||
bio_flagged(bio, BIO_PAGE_PINNED))
can be combined by the gcc optimiser into a single test in assembly
(arguably, this is a compiler optimisation issue[1]).
The missed optimisation stems from bio_flagged() comparing the result of
the bitwise-AND to zero. This results in an out-of-line bio_release_page()
being compiled to something like:
<+0>: mov 0x14(%rdi),%eax
<+3>: test $0x1,%al
<+5>: jne 0xffffffff816dac53 <bio_release_pages+11>
<+7>: test $0x2,%al
<+9>: je 0xffffffff816dac5c <bio_release_pages+20>
<+11>: movzbl %sil,%esi
<+15>: jmp 0xffffffff816daba1 <__bio_release_pages>
<+20>: jmp 0xffffffff81d0b800 <__x86_return_thunk>
However, the test is superfluous as the return type is bool. Removing it
results in:
<+0>: testb $0x3,0x14(%rdi)
<+4>: je 0xffffffff816e4af4 <bio_release_pages+15>
<+6>: movzbl %sil,%esi
<+10>: jmp 0xffffffff816dab7c <__bio_release_pages>
<+15>: jmp 0xffffffff81d0b7c0 <__x86_return_thunk>
instead.
Also, the MOVZBL instruction looks unnecessary[2] - I think it's just
're-booling' the mark_dirty parameter.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Reviewed-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108370 [1]
Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108371 [2]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/167391056756.2311931.356007731815807265.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk/ # v6
---
include/linux/bio.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/bio.h b/include/linux/bio.h
index d766be7152e1..d9d6df62ea57 100644
--- a/include/linux/bio.h
+++ b/include/linux/bio.h
@@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ static inline void bio_cnt_set(struct bio *bio, unsigned int count)
static inline bool bio_flagged(struct bio *bio, unsigned int bit)
{
- return (bio->bi_flags & (1U << bit)) != 0;
+ return bio->bi_flags & (1U << bit);
}
static inline void bio_set_flag(struct bio *bio, unsigned int bit)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists