Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:40:36 -0800
From:   Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
To:     Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        =?utf-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBNaXJvc8WCYXc=?= <mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>,
        Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>,
        Alexey Klimov <aklimov@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
        Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>,
        Sumanth Korikkar <sumanthk@linux.ibm.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@linux.alibaba.com>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 39/49] arch/s390: replace cpumask_weight with
 cpumask_weight_eq where appropriate
Message-ID: <Ygbz9G3DlPZYQ7Y7@yury-laptop>
References: <20220210224933.379149-1-yury.norov@gmail.com>
 <20220210224933.379149-40-yury.norov@gmail.com>
 <yt9dwni17v19.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <yt9dwni17v19.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 07:54:26AM +0100, Sven Schnelle wrote:
> Hi Yury,
> 
> Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > cfset_all_start() calls cpumask_weight() to compare the weight of cpumask
> > with a given number. We can do it more efficiently with
> > cpumask_weight_{eq, ...} because conditional cpumask_weight may stop
> > traversing the cpumask earlier, as soon as condition is (or can't be) met.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_cf.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_cf.c b/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_cf.c
> > index ee8707abdb6a..4d217f7f5ccf 100644
> > --- a/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_cf.c
> > +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_cf.c
> > @@ -975,7 +975,7 @@ static int cfset_all_start(struct cfset_request *req)
> >  		return -ENOMEM;
> >  	cpumask_and(mask, &req->mask, cpu_online_mask);
> >  	on_each_cpu_mask(mask, cfset_ioctl_on, &p, 1);
> > -	if (atomic_read(&p.cpus_ack) != cpumask_weight(mask)) {
> > +	if (!cpumask_weight_eq(mask, atomic_read(&p.cpus_ack))) {
> >  		on_each_cpu_mask(mask, cfset_ioctl_off, &p, 1);
> >  		rc = -EIO;
> >  		debug_sprintf_event(cf_dbg, 4, "%s CPUs missing", __func__);
> 
> given that you're adding a bunch of these functions - gt,lt,eq and
> others, i wonder whether it makes sense to also add cpumask_weight_ne(),
> so one could just write:
> 
> if (cpumask_weight_ne(mask, atomic_read(&p.cpus_ack))) {
> 	...
> }
> 
> ?

It will have 3 users in cpumask + 1 in nodemask. I have no strong opinion
whether we need it or not. Let's see what people say.

Thanks,
Yury