[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <093114e8-b02f-4df0-a0d4-8e9f86e2259d@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2023 12:49:55 +0100
From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
CC: <catalin.marinas@....com>, <will@...nel.org>, <pcc@...gle.com>,
<andreyknvl@...il.com>, <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
<linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, <yury.norov@...il.com>,
<alexandru.elisei@....com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <eugenis@...gle.com>,
<syednwaris@...il.com>, <william.gray@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 2/2] lib/test_bitmap: add tests for
bitmap_{read,write}()
From: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 16:32:10 +0100
> Add basic tests ensuring that values can be added at arbitrary positions
> of the bitmap, including those spanning into the adjacent unsigned
> longs.
>
> Two new performance tests, test_bitmap_read_perf() and
> test_bitmap_write_perf(), can be used to assess future performance
> improvements of bitmap_read() and bitmap_write():
>
> [ 0.431119][ T1] test_bitmap: Time spent in test_bitmap_read_perf: 615253
> [ 0.433197][ T1] test_bitmap: Time spent in test_bitmap_write_perf: 916313
>
> (numbers from a Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6154 CPU @ 3.00GHz machine running
> QEMU).
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
[...]
> +static bool __init
> +__check_eq_ulong(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
> + const unsigned long exp_ulong, unsigned long x)
> +{
> + if (exp_ulong != x) {
> + pr_err("[%s:%u] expected %lu, got %lu\n",
> + srcfile, line, exp_ulong, x);
> + return false;
> + }
> + return true;
> +}
Could we maybe rather extend __check_eq_uint to take ulongs? Doesn't
seem like they differ a lot.
>
> static bool __init
> __check_eq_bitmap(const char *srcfile, unsigned int line,
[...]
> +static void __init test_bitmap_read_perf(void)
> +{
> + DECLARE_BITMAP(bitmap, TEST_BIT_LEN);
> + unsigned int cnt, nbits, i;
> + unsigned long val;
> + ktime_t time;
> +
> + bitmap_fill(bitmap, TEST_BIT_LEN);
> + time = ktime_get();
> + for (cnt = 0; cnt < 5; cnt++) {
> + for (nbits = 1; nbits <= BITS_PER_LONG; nbits++) {
> + for (i = 0; i < TEST_BIT_LEN; i++) {
> + if (i + nbits > TEST_BIT_LEN)
> + break;
> + /*
> + * Prevent the compiler from optimizing away the
> + * bitmap_read() by using its value.
> + */
> + WRITE_ONCE(val, bitmap_read(bitmap, i, nbits));
> + }
> + }
> + }
> + time = ktime_get() - time;
> + pr_err("Time spent in %s:\t%llu\n", __func__, time);
pr_err() is for printing errors and is shown in red by some log readers.
Maybe use pr_info() or pr_notice()? Definitely not an error or even warning.
> +}
> +
> +static void __init test_bitmap_write_perf(void)
> +{
> + DECLARE_BITMAP(bitmap, TEST_BIT_LEN);
> + unsigned int cnt, nbits, i;
> + unsigned long val = 0xfeedface;
> + ktime_t time;
> +
> + bitmap_zero(bitmap, TEST_BIT_LEN);
> + time = ktime_get();
> + for (cnt = 0; cnt < 5; cnt++) {
> + for (nbits = 1; nbits <= BITS_PER_LONG; nbits++) {
> + for (i = 0; i < TEST_BIT_LEN; i++) {
> + if (i + nbits > TEST_BIT_LEN)
> + break;
> + bitmap_write(bitmap, val, i, nbits);
> + }
> + }
> + }
> + time = ktime_get() - time;
> + pr_err("Time spent in %s:\t%llu\n", __func__, time);
(same)
> +}
> +
> +#undef TEST_BIT_LEN
> +
> static void __init selftest(void)
> {
> test_zero_clear();
> @@ -1237,6 +1411,9 @@ static void __init selftest(void)
> test_bitmap_cut();
> test_bitmap_print_buf();
> test_bitmap_const_eval();
> + test_bitmap_read_write();
> + test_bitmap_read_perf();
> + test_bitmap_write_perf();
>
> test_find_nth_bit();
> test_for_each_set_bit();
Thanks,
Olek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists