[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZatDXvhvt0mLTi2m@fedora>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:51:58 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, ming.lei@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] lib/group_cpus: optimize outer loop in
grp_spread_init_one()
On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 06:50:48PM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> Similarly to the inner loop, in the outer loop we can use for_each_cpu()
> macro, and skip CPUs that have been moved.
>
> With this patch, the function becomes O(1), despite that it's a
> double-loop.
>
> While here, add a comment why we can't merge outer logic into the inner
> loop.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
> ---
> lib/group_cpus.c | 14 ++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/group_cpus.c b/lib/group_cpus.c
> index 0a8ac7cb1a5d..952aac9eaa81 100644
> --- a/lib/group_cpus.c
> +++ b/lib/group_cpus.c
> @@ -17,16 +17,17 @@ static void grp_spread_init_one(struct cpumask *irqmsk, struct cpumask *nmsk,
> const struct cpumask *siblmsk;
> int cpu, sibl;
>
> - for ( ; cpus_per_grp > 0; ) {
> - cpu = cpumask_first(nmsk);
> -
> - /* Should not happen, but I'm too lazy to think about it */
> - if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
> + for_each_cpu(cpu, nmsk) {
> + if (cpus_per_grp-- == 0)
> return;
>
> + /*
> + * If a caller wants to spread IRQa on offline CPUs, we need to
> + * take care of it explicitly because those offline CPUS are not
> + * included in siblings cpumask.
> + */
> __cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, nmsk);
> __cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, irqmsk);
> - cpus_per_grp--;
>
> /* If the cpu has siblings, use them first */
> siblmsk = topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu);
> @@ -38,6 +39,7 @@ static void grp_spread_init_one(struct cpumask *irqmsk, struct cpumask *nmsk,
>
> __cpumask_clear_cpu(sibl, nmsk);
> __cpumask_set_cpu(sibl, irqmsk);
> + cpu = sibl + 1;
It has been tricky enough to update condition variable of for_each_cpu()
(such kind of pattern can't build in Rust at all), and the above line could
be more tricky actually.
You can get O(1)(not sure it matters here) by using cpumask_next(), which
is more readable, isn't it?
diff --git a/lib/group_cpus.c b/lib/group_cpus.c
index 564d8e817f65..e0ce878ac4c4 100644
--- a/lib/group_cpus.c
+++ b/lib/group_cpus.c
@@ -15,10 +15,10 @@ static void grp_spread_init_one(struct cpumask *irqmsk, struct cpumask *nmsk,
unsigned int cpus_per_grp)
{
const struct cpumask *siblmsk;
- int cpu, sibl;
+ int cpu = -1;
- for ( ; cpus_per_grp > 0; ) {
- cpu = cpumask_first(nmsk);
+ while (cpus_per_grp > 0) {
+ cpu = cpumask_next(cpu, nmsk);
/* Should not happen, but I'm too lazy to think about it */
if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
@@ -30,9 +30,9 @@ static void grp_spread_init_one(struct cpumask *irqmsk, struct cpumask *nmsk,
/* If the cpu has siblings, use them first */
siblmsk = topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu);
- for_each_cpu_and(sibl, siblmsk, nmsk) {
- cpumask_clear_cpu(sibl, nmsk);
- cpumask_set_cpu(sibl, irqmsk);
+ for_each_cpu_and(cpu, siblmsk, nmsk) {
+ cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, nmsk);
+ cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, irqmsk);
if (--cpus_per_grp == 0)
return;
}
Thanks,
Ming
Powered by blists - more mailing lists