mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>,
	Mark Hahn <hahn@coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca>,
	David Howells <dhowells@cambridge.redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] micro-opt DEBUG_ADD_PAGE
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:37:45 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010208173745.A27383@khan.acc.umu.se> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10102071336230.5084-100000@penguin.transmeta.com> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0102081549210.12077-100000@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0102081549210.12077-100000@localhost.localdomain>; from hugh@veritas.com on Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 04:24:23PM +0000

On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 04:24:23PM +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > 
> > > None of those optimizes this: I believe the semantics of "||" (don't
> > > try next test if first succeeds) forbid the optimization "|" gives?
> > 
> > No. The optimization is entirely legal - but the fact that
> > "constant_test_bit()" uses a "volatile unsigned int *" is the reason why
> > gcc thinks it can't optimize it.
> 
> Ah, yes, I hadn't noticed that, the "volatile" is indeed why it ends up
> with three "mov"s.  But take the "volatile"s out of constant_test_bit(),
> and DEBUG_ADD_PAGE still expands to three tests and three (four if 2.97)
> jumps - which is what originally offended me.
> 
> But Mark (in test program in private mail) shows gcc combining bits
> into one test and one jump, just as we'd hope (and I wrongly thought
> forbidden).  Perhaps the inline function nature of constant_test_bit()
> (which Mark didn't use) gets in the way of combining those tests.
> 
> > You could try to remove the volatile from test_bit, and see if that fixes
> > it - but then we'd have to find and add the proper "rmb()" calls to people
> > who do the endless loop kind of thing like above.
> 
> That is not an inviting path to me, at least not any time soon!
> 
> I think this all argues for the little patch I suggested - just avoid
> test_bit() here.  But it was only intended as a quick little suggestion:
> looks like our tastes differ, and you prefer taking the _tiny_ hit of
> using the regular macros, to seeing "1<<PG_bitshift"s in DEBUG_ADD_PAGE.

Well, after all, it's debugging code, and the code now is easy to read.
Your code, while more efficient, isn't. I think that clarity takes
priority over efficiency in non-critical code such as debugging
code. Of course, this is my personal opinion...


/David
  _                                                                 _
 // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander      \\
//  Project MCA Linux hacker        //  Dance across the winter sky //
\>  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    </   Full colour fire           </
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  reply	other threads:[~2001-02-08 16:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <Pine.LNX.4.21.0102071744440.5204-100000@localhost.localdomain>
2001-02-07 18:00 ` Hugh Dickins
2001-02-07 18:17   ` Linus Torvalds
2001-02-07 20:42     ` Hugh Dickins
2001-02-07 21:40       ` Linus Torvalds
2001-02-08  1:24         ` Kai Germaschewski
2001-02-08 16:24         ` Hugh Dickins
2001-02-08 16:37           ` David Weinehall [this message]
2001-02-08 16:56             ` Hugh Dickins
2001-02-08 17:02               ` Rik van Riel
2001-02-08 17:02           ` Richard B. Johnson
2001-02-08 17:19             ` Stephen Wille Padnos
2001-02-08 17:57               ` Richard B. Johnson
2001-02-08 18:16                 ` Stephen Wille Padnos
2001-02-08 19:32                   ` Richard B. Johnson

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=20010208173745.A27383@khan.acc.umu.se \
    --to=tao@acc.umu.se \
    --cc=dhowells@cambridge.redhat.com \
    --cc=hahn@coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca \
    --cc=hugh@veritas.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=riel@conectiva.com.br \
    --cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
    /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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®