From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: tglx@linutronix.de
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, harvey.harrison@gmail.com,
mingo@elte.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bitops: remove "optimizations"
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 05:34:12 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080429.053412.15412725.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080429.030332.88897602.davem@davemloft.net>
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:01:02 +0200 (CEST)
>
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>
> Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Ironically, I just bisected sparc64 bootup failures to the following
changeset. It's very late here, and I haven't looked into the
details, but it seems to wedge in free_area_init_nodes() on a non-NUMA
system with CONFIG_NUMA disabled.
Isn't it funny that this optimization not only was useless, but also
broke things. :-/
64970b68d2b3ed32b964b0b30b1b98518fde388e is first bad commit
commit 64970b68d2b3ed32b964b0b30b1b98518fde388e
Author: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@mailshack.com>
Date: Tue Mar 11 16:17:19 2008 +0100
x86, generic: optimize find_next_(zero_)bit for small constant-size bitmaps
This moves an optimization for searching constant-sized small
bitmaps form x86_64-specific to generic code.
On an i386 defconfig (the x86#testing one), the size of vmlinux hardly
changes with this applied. I have observed only four places where this
optimization avoids a call into find_next_bit:
In the functions return_unused_surplus_pages, alloc_fresh_huge_page,
and adjust_pool_surplus, this patch avoids a call for a 1-bit bitmap.
In __next_cpu a call is avoided for a 32-bit bitmap. That's it.
On x86_64, 52 locations are optimized with a minimal increase in
code size:
Current #testing defconfig:
146 x bsf, 27 x find_next_*bit
text data bss dec hex filename
5392637 846592 724424 6963653 6a41c5 vmlinux
After removing the x86_64 specific optimization for find_next_*bit:
94 x bsf, 79 x find_next_*bit
text data bss dec hex filename
5392358 846592 724424 6963374 6a40ae vmlinux
After this patch (making the optimization generic):
146 x bsf, 27 x find_next_*bit
text data bss dec hex filename
5392396 846592 724424 6963412 6a40d4 vmlinux
[ tglx@linutronix.de: build fixes ]
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
:040000 040000 c0407f7df7dc5333c78c300780931a269ae0dedd 2f6ef634a35b6dd46e40ea70128c39a742e60501 M include
:040000 040000 556ee6ccb15cdbb1aa5a690c732a5492d58dfe6f 937d05977f46056c12b5da64ca62959c06a912c0 M lib
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-29 12:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-04-27 20:19 [PATCH] bitops: simplify generic bit finding functions Harvey Harrison
2008-04-27 20:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-04-27 20:29 ` Harvey Harrison
2008-04-27 20:36 ` Al Viro
2008-04-27 20:38 ` Harvey Harrison
2008-04-27 20:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-04-27 21:02 ` Al Viro
2008-04-28 14:04 ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-04-28 15:10 ` Alexander van Heukelum
2008-04-28 15:58 ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-04-28 16:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-04-28 16:47 ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-04-28 16:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-04-28 19:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-04-28 19:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-04-28 21:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-04-29 10:01 ` [PATCH] bitops: remove "optimizations" Thomas Gleixner
2008-04-29 10:03 ` David Miller
2008-04-29 12:34 ` David Miller [this message]
2008-04-29 14:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-04-29 22:31 ` David Miller
2008-04-29 16:51 ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-04-29 22:58 ` David Miller
2008-04-29 23:30 ` David Miller
2008-04-28 19:57 ` [PATCH] bitops: simplify generic bit finding functions Andi Kleen
2008-04-28 14:58 ` Alexander van Heukelum
2008-04-28 14:32 ` 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=20080429.053412.15412725.davem@davemloft.net \
--to=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=harvey.harrison@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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
Powered by JetHome