From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
"'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"'peterz@infradead.org'" <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "'mingo@redhat.com'" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"'will@kernel.org'" <will@kernel.org>,
"'boqun.feng@gmail.com'" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
'Linus Torvalds' <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"'virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org'"
<virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
'Zeng Heng' <zengheng4@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next v2 5/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimise decode_cpu() and per_cpu_ptr().
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 23:14:21 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9d4024ba-6422-4775-b934-bfa80a72a858@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7c1148fe64fb46a7a81c984776cd91df@AcuMS.aculab.com>
On 12/31/23 16:55, David Laight wrote:
> per_cpu_ptr() indexes __per_cpu_offset[] with the cpu number.
> This requires the cpu number be 64bit.
> However the value is osq_lock() comes from a 32bit xchg() and there
> isn't a way of telling gcc the high bits are zero (they are) so
> there will always be an instruction to clear the high bits.
>
> The cpu number is also offset by one (to make the initialiser 0)
> It seems to be impossible to get gcc to convert __per_cpu_offset[cpu_p1 - 1]
> into (__per_cpu_offset - 1)[cpu_p1] (transferring the offset to the address).
>
> Converting the cpu number to 32bit unsigned prior to the decrement means
> that gcc knows the decrement has set the high bits to zero and doesn't
> add a register-register move (or cltq) to zero/sign extend the value.
>
> Not massive but saves two instructions.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Laight <david.laight@aculab.com>
> ---
> kernel/locking/osq_lock.c | 6 ++----
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> index 35bb99e96697..37a4fa872989 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> @@ -29,11 +29,9 @@ static inline int encode_cpu(int cpu_nr)
> return cpu_nr + 1;
> }
>
> -static inline struct optimistic_spin_node *decode_cpu(int encoded_cpu_val)
> +static inline struct optimistic_spin_node *decode_cpu(unsigned int encoded_cpu_val)
> {
> - int cpu_nr = encoded_cpu_val - 1;
> -
> - return per_cpu_ptr(&osq_node, cpu_nr);
> + return per_cpu_ptr(&osq_node, encoded_cpu_val - 1);
> }
>
> /*
You really like micro-optimization.
Anyway,
Reviewed-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-01 4:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-12-31 21:49 [PATCH next v2 0/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimisations to osq_lock code David Laight
2023-12-31 21:51 ` [PATCH next v2 1/5] locking/osq_lock: Defer clearing node->locked until the slow osq_lock() path David Laight
2024-01-01 4:08 ` Waiman Long
2024-01-02 9:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2024-01-02 9:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2023-12-31 21:52 ` [PATCH next v2 2/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimise the vcpu_is_preempted() check David Laight
2024-01-01 4:09 ` Waiman Long
2024-01-02 9:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2024-01-08 7:42 ` kernel test robot
2023-12-31 21:54 ` [PATCH next v2 3/5] locking/osq_lock: Use node->prev_cpu instead of saving node->prev David Laight
2024-01-01 4:09 ` Waiman Long
2023-12-31 21:54 ` [PATCH next v2 4/5] locking/osq_lock: Avoid writing to node->next in the osq_lock() fast path David Laight
2024-01-01 4:13 ` Waiman Long
2024-01-02 9:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2023-12-31 21:55 ` [PATCH next v2 5/5] locking/osq_lock: Optimise decode_cpu() and per_cpu_ptr() David Laight
2024-01-01 4:14 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2024-01-01 8:47 ` David Laight
2024-05-03 15:59 ` Waiman Long
2024-05-03 16:16 ` David Laight
2024-05-03 21:10 ` David Laight
2024-05-03 22:13 ` Waiman Long
2024-05-04 20:26 ` David Laight
2024-01-02 9:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2024-01-02 10:20 ` David Laight
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=9d4024ba-6422-4775-b934-bfa80a72a858@redhat.com \
--to=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=David.Laight@ACULAB.COM \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=zengheng4@huawei.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®