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
next prev parent 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®