Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 19 Jun 2021 10:28:06 -0700
From:   Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de>,
        Russell King <linux+etnaviv@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Christian Gmeiner <christian.gmeiner@gmail.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
        Alexey Klimov <aklimov@redhat.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, etnaviv@lists.freedesktop.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] find: micro-optimize for_each_{set,clear}_bit()
Message-ID: <YM4pJpNphEwvUF2F@yury-ThinkPad>
References: <20210618195735.55933-1-yury.norov@gmail.com>
 <20210618195735.55933-3-yury.norov@gmail.com>
 <87bl81ddqo.wl-maz@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87bl81ddqo.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 05:24:15PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 20:57:34 +0100,
> Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > The macros iterate thru all set/clear bits in a bitmap. They search a
> > first bit using find_first_bit(), and the rest bits using find_next_bit().
> > 
> > Since find_next_bit() is called shortly after find_first_bit(), we can
> > save few lines of I-cache by not using find_first_bit().
> 
> Really?
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/find.h | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/find.h b/include/linux/find.h
> > index 4500e8ab93e2..ae9ed52b52b8 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/find.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/find.h
> > @@ -280,7 +280,7 @@ unsigned long find_next_bit_le(const void *addr, unsigned
> >  #endif
> >  
> >  #define for_each_set_bit(bit, addr, size) \
> > -	for ((bit) = find_first_bit((addr), (size));		\
> > +	for ((bit) = find_next_bit((addr), (size), 0);		\
> 
> On which architecture do you observe a gain? Only 32bit ARM and m68k
> implement their own version of find_first_bit(), and everyone else
> uses the canonical implementation:

And those who enable GENERIC_FIND_FIRST_BIT - x86, arm64, arc, mips
and s390.

> #ifndef find_first_bit
> #define find_first_bit(addr, size) find_next_bit((addr), (size), 0)
> #endif
> 
> These architectures explicitly have different implementations for
> find_first_bit() and find_next_bit() because they can do better
> (whether that is true or not is another debate). I don't think you
> should remove this optimisation until it has been measured on these
> two architectures.

This patch is based on a series that enables separate implementation
of find_first_bit() for all architectures; according to my tests,
find_first* is ~ twice faster than find_next* on arm64 and x86.

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210612123639.329047-1-yury.norov@gmail.com/T/#t

After applying the series, I noticed that my small kernel module that
calls for_each_set_bit() is now using find_first_bit() to just find
one bit, and find_next_bit() for all others. I think it's better to
always use find_next_bit() in this case to minimize the chance of
cache miss. But if it's not that obvious, I'll try to write some test.