Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1446958 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Zhou Chengming <zhouchengming1@huawei.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-20 06:30 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-07-21 16:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 4 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
[PATCH] make __section_nr more efficient Zhou Chengming <zhouchengming1@huawei.com> - 2016-07-20 06:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] make __section_nr more efficient Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> - 2016-07-20 23:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] make __section_nr more efficient zhouchengming <zhouchengming1@huawei.com> - 2016-07-21 04:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] make __section_nr more efficient Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> - 2016-07-21 16:40 +0200
| From | Zhou Chengming <zhouchengming1@huawei.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 06:30 +0200 |
| Subject | [PATCH] make __section_nr more efficient |
| Message-ID | <rWRiW-52m-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
When CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_EXTREME is disabled, __section_nr can get
the section number with a subtraction directly.
Signed-off-by: Zhou Chengming <zhouchengming1@huawei.com>
---
mm/sparse.c | 12 +++++++-----
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/sparse.c b/mm/sparse.c
index 5d0cf45..36d7bbb 100644
--- a/mm/sparse.c
+++ b/mm/sparse.c
@@ -100,11 +100,7 @@ static inline int sparse_index_init(unsigned long section_nr, int nid)
}
#endif
-/*
- * Although written for the SPARSEMEM_EXTREME case, this happens
- * to also work for the flat array case because
- * NR_SECTION_ROOTS==NR_MEM_SECTIONS.
- */
+#ifdef CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_EXTREME
int __section_nr(struct mem_section* ms)
{
unsigned long root_nr;
@@ -123,6 +119,12 @@ int __section_nr(struct mem_section* ms)
return (root_nr * SECTIONS_PER_ROOT) + (ms - root);
}
+#else
+int __section_nr(struct mem_section* ms)
+{
+ return (int)(ms - mem_section[0]);
+}
+#endif
/*
* During early boot, before section_mem_map is used for an actual
--
1.7.7
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 23:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rX7nH-6Oz-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1446958 |
On 07/19/2016 09:18 PM, Zhou Chengming wrote: > When CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_EXTREME is disabled, __section_nr can get > the section number with a subtraction directly. Does this actually *do* anything? It was a long time ago, but if I remember correctly, the entire loop in __section_nr() goes away because root_nr==NR_SECTION_ROOTS, so root_nr=1, and the compiler optimizes away the entire subtraction. So this basically adds an #ifdef and gets us nothing, although it makes the situation much more explicit. Perhaps the comment should say that this works *and* is efficient because the compiler can optimize all the extreme complexity away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | zhouchengming <zhouchengming1@huawei.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 04:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rXbrp-PC-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1447488 |
On 2016/7/21 5:36, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 07/19/2016 09:18 PM, Zhou Chengming wrote:
>> When CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_EXTREME is disabled, __section_nr can get
>> the section number with a subtraction directly.
>
> Does this actually *do* anything?
>
> It was a long time ago, but if I remember correctly, the entire loop in
> __section_nr() goes away because root_nr==NR_SECTION_ROOTS, so
> root_nr=1, and the compiler optimizes away the entire subtraction.
>
> So this basically adds an #ifdef and gets us nothing, although it makes
> the situation much more explicit. Perhaps the comment should say that
> this works *and* is efficient because the compiler can optimize all the
> extreme complexity away.
>
> .
>
Thanks for your reply. I don't know the compiler will optimize the loop.
But when I see the assembly code of __section_nr, it seems to still have
the loop in it.
My gcc version: gcc version 4.9.0 (GCC)
CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_EXTREME: disabled
Before this patch:
0000000000000000 <__section_nr>:
0: 55 push %rbp
1: 48 c7 c2 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%rdx
4: R_X86_64_32S mem_section
8: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
a: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
d: eb 0d jmp 1c <__section_nr+0x1c>
f: 48 83 c0 01 add $0x1,%rax
13: 48 81 fa 00 00 00 00 cmp $0x0,%rdx
16: R_X86_64_32S mem_section+0x800000
1a: 74 26 je 42 <__section_nr+0x42>
1c: 48 89 d1 mov %rdx,%rcx
1f: ba 10 00 00 00 mov $0x10,%edx
24: 48 85 c9 test %rcx,%rcx
27: 74 e6 je f <__section_nr+0xf>
29: 48 39 cf cmp %rcx,%rdi
2c: 48 8d 51 10 lea 0x10(%rcx),%rdx
30: 72 dd jb f <__section_nr+0xf>
32: 48 39 d7 cmp %rdx,%rdi
35: 73 d8 jae f <__section_nr+0xf>
37: 48 29 cf sub %rcx,%rdi
3a: 48 c1 ff 04 sar $0x4,%rdi
3e: 01 f8 add %edi,%eax
40: 5d pop %rbp
41: c3 retq
42: 48 29 cf sub %rcx,%rdi
45: b8 00 00 08 00 mov $0x80000,%eax
4a: 48 c1 ff 04 sar $0x4,%rdi
4e: 01 f8 add %edi,%eax
50: 5d pop %rbp
51: c3 retq
52: 66 66 66 66 66 2e 0f data32 data32 data32 data32 nopw %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
59: 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00
After this patch:
0000000000000000 <__section_nr>:
0: 55 push %rbp
1: 48 89 f8 mov %rdi,%rax
4: 48 2d 00 00 00 00 sub $0x0,%rax
6: R_X86_64_32S mem_section
a: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
d: 48 c1 f8 04 sar $0x4,%rax
11: 5d pop %rbp
12: c3 retq
13: 66 66 66 66 2e 0f 1f data32 data32 data32 nopw %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
1a: 84 00 00 00 00 00
Thanks!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 16:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rXniO-cH-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1447583 |
On 07/20/2016 06:55 PM, zhouchengming wrote: > Thanks for your reply. I don't know the compiler will optimize the loop. > But when I see the assembly code of __section_nr, it seems to still have > the loop in it. Oh, well. I guess it got broken in the last decade or so. Your patch looks good to me, and the fact that we ended up here means the original approach was at least a little fragile.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web