LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@mailshack.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
heukelum@fastmail.fm
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Change x86 to use generic find_next_bit
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 21:10:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080309201016.GA28454@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080309200103.GA895@mailshack.com>
* Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@mailshack.com> wrote:
> x86: Change x86 to use the generic find_next_bit implementation
>
> The versions with inline assembly are in fact slower on the machines I
> tested them on (in userspace) (Athlon XP 2800+, p4-like Xeon 2.8GHz,
> AMD Opteron 270). The i386-version needed a fix similar to 06024f21 to
> avoid crashing the benchmark.
>
> Benchmark using: gcc -fomit-frame-pointer -Os. For each bitmap size
> 1...512, for each possible bitmap with one bit set, for each possible
> offset: find the position of the first bit starting at offset. If you
> follow ;). Times include setup of the bitmap and checking of the
> results.
>
> Athlon Xeon Opteron 32/64bit
> x86-specific: 0m3.692s 0m2.820s 0m3.196s / 0m2.480s
> generic: 0m2.622s 0m1.662s 0m2.100s / 0m1.572s
ok, that's rather convincing.
the generic version in lib/find_next_bit.c is open-coded C which gcc can
optimize pretty nicely.
the hand-coded assembly versions in arch/x86/lib/bitops_32.c mostly use
the special x86 'bit search forward' (BSF) instruction - which i know
from the days when the scheduler relied on it has some non-trivial setup
costs. So especially when there's _small_ bitmasks involved, it's more
expensive.
> If the bitmap size is not a multiple of BITS_PER_LONG, and no set
> (cleared) bit is found, find_next_bit (find_next_zero_bit) returns a
> value outside of the range [0,size]. The generic version always
> returns exactly size. The generic version also uses unsigned long
> everywhere, while the x86 versions use a mishmash of int, unsigned
> (int), long and unsigned long.
i'm not surprised that the hand-coded assembly versions had a bug ...
[ this means we have to test it quite carefully though, as lots of code
only ever gets tested on x86 so code could have built dependency on
the buggy behavior. ]
> Using the generic version does give a slightly bigger kernel, though.
>
> defconfig: text data bss dec hex filename
> x86-specific: 4738555 481232 626688 5846475 5935cb vmlinux (32 bit)
> generic: 4738621 481232 626688 5846541 59360d vmlinux (32 bit)
> x86-specific: 5392395 846568 724424 6963387 6a40bb vmlinux (64 bit)
> generic: 5392458 846568 724424 6963450 6a40fa vmlinux (64 bit)
i'd not worry about that too much. Have you tried to build with:
CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y
CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y
(the latter only available in x86.git)
> Patch is against -x86#testing. It compiles.
i've picked it up into x86.git, lets see how it goes in practice.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-09 20:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-09 20:01 Alexander van Heukelum
2008-03-09 20:10 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2008-03-09 21:03 ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-09 21:32 ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-09 21:13 ` Alexander van Heukelum
2008-03-10 6:29 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-09 20:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-09 20:31 ` Alexander van Heukelum
2008-03-09 20:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-09 21:29 ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-10 23:17 ` [RFC/PATCH] x86: Optimize find_next_(zero_)bit for small constant-size bitmaps Alexander van Heukelum
2008-03-11 9:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-11 15:17 ` [PATCH] " Alexander van Heukelum
2008-03-11 15:22 ` [RFC] non-x86: " Alexander van Heukelum
2008-03-11 15:23 ` [PATCH] x86: " Ingo Molnar
2008-03-09 20:28 ` [PATCH] x86: Change x86 to use generic find_next_bit Andi Kleen
2008-03-09 21:31 ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-13 12:44 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-03-13 14:27 ` Alexander van Heukelum
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080309201016.GA28454@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=heukelum@fastmail.fm \
--cc=heukelum@mailshack.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--subject='Re: [PATCH] x86: Change x86 to use generic find_next_bit' \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).