[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZatwJE6d9Kp3GuBy@fedora>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 15:03:00 +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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] lib/group_cpus: optimize inner loop in
grp_spread_init_one()
On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 11:17:00AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 06:50:46PM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> > The loop starts from the beginning every time we switch to the next
> > sibling mask. This is the Schlemiel the Painter's style of coding
> > because we know for sure that nmsk is clear up to current CPU, and we
> > can just continue from the next CPU.
> >
> > Also, we can do it nicer if leverage the dedicated for_each() iterator,
> > and simplify the logic of clearing a bit in nmsk.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
> > ---
> > lib/group_cpus.c | 14 +++++++-------
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/group_cpus.c b/lib/group_cpus.c
> > index ee272c4cefcc..063ed9ae1b8d 100644
> > --- a/lib/group_cpus.c
> > +++ b/lib/group_cpus.c
> > @@ -30,14 +30,14 @@ 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 (sibl = -1; cpus_per_grp > 0; ) {
> > - sibl = cpumask_next(sibl, siblmsk);
> > - if (sibl >= nr_cpu_ids)
> > - break;
> > - if (!cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(sibl, nmsk))
> > - continue;
> > + sibl = cpu + 1;
>
> No, it is silly to let 'sibl' point to 'cpu + 1', cause we just
> want to iterate over 'siblmsk & nmsk', and nothing to do with
> the next cpu('cpu + 1').
>
> > +
> > + for_each_cpu_and_from(sibl, siblmsk, nmsk) {
> > + if (cpus_per_grp-- == 0)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + cpumask_clear_cpu(sibl, nmsk);
> > cpumask_set_cpu(sibl, irqmsk);
> > - cpus_per_grp--;
>
> Andrew, please replace the 1st two patches with the following one:
>
> From 7a983ee5e1b4f05e5ae26c025dffd801b909e2f3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
> Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:07:26 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] lib/group_cpus.c: simplify grp_spread_init_one()
>
> What the inner loop needs to do is to iterate over `siblmsk & nmsk`, and
> clear the cpu in 'nmsk' and set it in 'irqmsk'.
>
> Clean it by for_each_cpu_and().
>
> This is based on Yury Norov's patch, which needs one extra
> for_each_cpu_and_from(), which is really not necessary.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
> ---
> lib/group_cpus.c | 11 ++++-------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/group_cpus.c b/lib/group_cpus.c
> index ee272c4cefcc..564d8e817f65 100644
> --- a/lib/group_cpus.c
> +++ b/lib/group_cpus.c
> @@ -30,14 +30,11 @@ 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 (sibl = -1; cpus_per_grp > 0; ) {
> - sibl = cpumask_next(sibl, siblmsk);
> - if (sibl >= nr_cpu_ids)
> - break;
> - if (!cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(sibl, nmsk))
> - continue;
> + for_each_cpu_and(sibl, siblmsk, nmsk) {
> + cpumask_clear_cpu(sibl, nmsk);
> cpumask_set_cpu(sibl, irqmsk);
> - cpus_per_grp--;
> + if (--cpus_per_grp == 0)
> + return;
Iterator variable of 'nmsk' is updated inside loop, and it is still
tricky, so please ignore it, I just sent one formal & revised patch:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2024/1/20/43
Thanks,
Ming
Powered by blists - more mailing lists