From 0679cc483669d08153d158273455398a389ee9ca Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rasmus Villemoes Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 16:09:49 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] lib: bitmap: make nbits parameter of bitmap_empty unsigned Many functions in lib/bitmap.c start with an expression such as lim = bits/BITS_PER_LONG. Since bits has type (signed) int, and since gcc cannot know that it is in fact non-negative, it generates worse code than it could. These patches, mostly consisting of changing various parameters to unsigned, gives a slight overall code reduction: add/remove: 1/1 grow/shrink: 8/16 up/down: 251/-414 (-163) function old new delta tick_device_uses_broadcast 335 425 +90 __irq_alloc_descs 498 554 +56 __bitmap_andnot 73 115 +42 __bitmap_and 70 101 +31 bitmap_weight - 11 +11 copy_hugetlb_page_range 752 762 +10 follow_hugetlb_page 846 854 +8 hugetlb_init 1415 1417 +2 hugetlb_nrpages_setup 130 131 +1 hugetlb_add_hstate 377 376 -1 bitmap_allocate_region 82 80 -2 select_task_rq_fair 2202 2191 -11 hweight_long 66 55 -11 __reg_op 230 219 -11 dm_stats_message 2849 2833 -16 bitmap_parselist 92 74 -18 __bitmap_weight 115 97 -18 __bitmap_subset 153 129 -24 __bitmap_full 128 104 -24 __bitmap_empty 120 96 -24 bitmap_set 179 149 -30 bitmap_clear 185 155 -30 __bitmap_equal 136 105 -31 __bitmap_intersects 148 108 -40 __bitmap_complement 109 67 -42 tick_device_setup_broadcast_func.isra 81 - -81 [The increases in __bitmap_and{,not} are due to bug fixes 17/18,18/18. No idea why bitmap_weight suddenly appears.] While 163 bytes treewide is insignificant, I believe the bitmap functions are often called with locks held, so saving even a few cycles might be worth it. While making these changes, I found a few other things that might be worth including. 16,17,18 are actual bug fixes. The rest shouldn't change the behaviour of any of the functions, provided no-one passed negative nbits values. If something should come up, it should be fairly bisectable. A few issues I thought about, but didn't know what to do with: * Many of the functions misbehave if nbits is compile-time 0; the out-of-line functions generally handle 0 correctly. bitmap_fill() is particularly bad, whether the 0 is known at compile time or not. It would probably be nice to add detection of at least compile-time 0 and handle that appropriately. * I didn't change __bitmap_shift_{left,right} to use unsigned because I want to fully understand why the algorithm works before making that change. However, AFAICT, they behave correctly for all (positive) shift amounts. This is not the case for the small_const_nbits versions. If for example nbits = n = BITS_PER_LONG, the shift operators turn into no-ops (at least on x86), so one get *dst = *src, whereas one would expect to get *dst=0. That difference in behaviour is somewhat annoying. This patch (of 18): The compiler can generate slightly smaller and simpler code when it knows that "nbits" is non-negative. Since no-one passes a negative bit-count, this shouldn't affect the semantics. Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- include/linux/bitmap.h | 4 ++-- lib/bitmap.c | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/bitmap.h b/include/linux/bitmap.h index 7ad634501e48..3d3fd6b2f157 100644 --- a/include/linux/bitmap.h +++ b/include/linux/bitmap.h @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ * lib/bitmap.c provides these functions: */ -extern int __bitmap_empty(const unsigned long *bitmap, int bits); +extern int __bitmap_empty(const unsigned long *bitmap, unsigned int nbits); extern int __bitmap_full(const unsigned long *bitmap, int bits); extern int __bitmap_equal(const unsigned long *bitmap1, const unsigned long *bitmap2, int bits); @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ static inline int bitmap_subset(const unsigned long *src1, return __bitmap_subset(src1, src2, nbits); } -static inline int bitmap_empty(const unsigned long *src, int nbits) +static inline int bitmap_empty(const unsigned long *src, unsigned nbits) { if (small_const_nbits(nbits)) return ! (*src & BITMAP_LAST_WORD_MASK(nbits)); diff --git a/lib/bitmap.c b/lib/bitmap.c index 06f7e4fe8d2d..378911001442 100644 --- a/lib/bitmap.c +++ b/lib/bitmap.c @@ -40,9 +40,9 @@ * for the best explanations of this ordering. */ -int __bitmap_empty(const unsigned long *bitmap, int bits) +int __bitmap_empty(const unsigned long *bitmap, unsigned int bits) { - int k, lim = bits/BITS_PER_LONG; + unsigned int k, lim = bits/BITS_PER_LONG; for (k = 0; k < lim; ++k) if (bitmap[k]) return 0; -- 2.20.1