mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sander Vanheule <sander@svanheule.net>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] cpumask: Fix invalid uniprocessor mask assumption
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2022 17:13:52 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4d4af51192f7de92f0c5e2409db1d5cc4983a309.camel@svanheule.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Ypk+MKSSaSCBnITY@yury-laptop>

On Thu, 2022-06-02 at 15:48 -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 11:04:19PM +0200, Sander Vanheule wrote:
> > On uniprocessor builds, any CPU mask is assumed to contain exactly one
> > CPU (cpu0). This ignores the existence of empty masks, resulting in
> > incorrect behaviour for most of the implemented optimisations.
> > 
> > Replace the uniprocessor optimisations with implementations that also
> > take into account empty masks. Also drop the incorrectly optimised
> > for_each_cpu implementations and use the generic implementations in all
> > cases.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sander Vanheule <sander@svanheule.net>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/cpumask.h | 35 +++++++++++++++--------------------
> >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/cpumask.h b/include/linux/cpumask.h
> > index fe29ac7cc469..ce8c7b27f6c9 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/cpumask.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/cpumask.h
> > @@ -117,51 +117,54 @@ static __always_inline unsigned int
> > cpumask_check(unsigned int cpu)
> >  }
> >  
> >  #if NR_CPUS == 1
> > -/* Uniprocessor.  Assume all masks are "1". */
> > +/* Uniprocessor. Assume all valid masks are "1" or empty. */
> >  static inline unsigned int cpumask_first(const struct cpumask *srcp)
> >  {
> > -       return 0;
> > +       return !(*cpumask_bits(srcp) & 1);
> >  }
>  
> I think, you can just drop this '#if NR_CPUS == 1' part and rely on SMP
> versions. find_first_bit() is optimized for short bitmaps, so I expect
> no overhead comparing to this.

I was initially planning to just drop the UP versions, but that means I have to
include lib/cpumask.o on all builds. I'll have another look at this.

[...]

> >  
> >  static inline unsigned int cpumask_next_wrap(int n, const struct cpumask
> > *mask,
> >                                              int start, bool wrap)
> >  {
> > -       /* cpu0 unless stop condition, wrap and at cpu0, then
> > nr_cpumask_bits */
> > -       return (wrap && n == 0);
> > +       /*
> > +        * nr_cpumask_bits at stop condition, wrap and at cpu0, or empty
> > mask
> > +        * otherwise cpu0
> > +        */
> > +       return (wrap && n == 0) || cpumask_first(mask);
> >  }

My tests contained a copy-paste error, so I missed a case. The results currently
still differ from the SMP implementation though, so this looks like another
reason to just drop the UP optimised version.

> >  
> >  /* cpu must be a valid cpu, ie 0, so there's no other choice. */
> > @@ -186,14 +189,6 @@ static inline int cpumask_any_distribute(const struct
> > cpumask *srcp)
> >         return cpumask_first(srcp);
> >  }
> >  
> > -#define for_each_cpu(cpu, mask)                        \
> > -       for ((cpu) = 0; (cpu) < 1; (cpu)++, (void)mask)
> > -#define for_each_cpu_not(cpu, mask)            \
> > -       for ((cpu) = 0; (cpu) < 1; (cpu)++, (void)mask)
> > -#define for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, mask, start)    \
> > -       for ((cpu) = 0; (cpu) < 1; (cpu)++, (void)mask, (void)(start))
> > -#define for_each_cpu_and(cpu, mask1, mask2)    \
> > -       for ((cpu) = 0; (cpu) < 1; (cpu)++, (void)mask1, (void)mask2)
> >  #else
> >  /**
> >   * cpumask_first - get the first cpu in a cpumask
> > @@ -259,11 +254,13 @@ static inline unsigned int cpumask_next_zero(int n,
> > const struct cpumask *srcp)
> >  }
> >  
> >  int __pure cpumask_next_and(int n, const struct cpumask *, const struct
> > cpumask *);
> > +extern int cpumask_next_wrap(int n, const struct cpumask *mask, int start,
> > bool wrap);
> 
> is this extern needed?

I don't think it is, but this is a line that I just moved around in the header.
Like for the other functions, I could even add the __pure qualifier.


Thanks for the feedback,
Sander


  reply	other threads:[~2022-06-03 15:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-06-02 21:04 [PATCH v1 0/2] cpumask: Fix invalid uniprocessor assumptions Sander Vanheule
2022-06-02 21:04 ` [PATCH v1 1/2] cpumask: Fix invalid uniprocessor mask assumption Sander Vanheule
2022-06-02 22:48   ` Yury Norov
2022-06-03 15:13     ` Sander Vanheule [this message]
2022-06-02 21:04 ` [PATCH v1 2/2] cpumask: Add UP optimised for_each_*_cpu loops Sander Vanheule

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=4d4af51192f7de92f0c5e2409db1d5cc4983a309.camel@svanheule.net \
    --to=sander@svanheule.net \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=elver@google.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
    --cc=yury.norov@gmail.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®