LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andi Kleen <>
To: Ingo Molnar <>
Cc: Alexander van Heukelum <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>,
	LKML <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Change x86 to use generic find_next_bit
Date: 09 Mar 2008 22:03:42 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

Ingo Molnar <> writes:
> 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 

~14 cycles on K8 for memory, but if you stay in a register it is 8 cycles

> costs. So especially when there's _small_ bitmasks involved, it's more 
> expensive.

I had a patchkit some time ago to special case the max_bit <= 63 case
and always use directly inlined stream lined single instruction
assembler for that. There was still some issue and I dropped it then,
but doing something like that makes still sense. Even if the BSF 
is slightly slower than the open coded version just getting rid
of the CALL will make it a win and it could be also kept in a register
so you get the 8 cycle variant (for which I doubt you can do 
it faster open coded) 

The result would be that a standard for_each_cpu () in a NR_CPUS <= 64
kernel wouldn't have any unnecessary calls.

In general the problem of walking cpu masks is quite different
from seaching ext2 bitmaps, so they likely should be special cased
and optimized for each.


  reply	other threads:[~2008-03-09 21:03 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
2008-03-09 21:03   ` Andi Kleen [this message]
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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] x86: Change x86 to use generic find_next_bit' \

* 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).