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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220603055156.2830463-1-irogers@google.com> <CAP-5=fVhVLWg+c=WJyOD8FByg_4n6V0SLSLnaw7K0J=-oNnuaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <495f2924138069abaf49269b2c3bd1e4f5f4362e.camel@perches.com>
In-Reply-To: <495f2924138069abaf49269b2c3bd1e4f5f4362e.camel@perches.com>
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 3 Jun 2022 11:19:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEf4Bzbwp0pgfDf-xUpWKzD2Eo=6JP0S-QrFKUZZffq49X=FQg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] libbpf: Fix is_pow_of_2
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc:     Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Yuze Chi <chiyuze@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 9:58 AM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2022-06-02 at 22:57 -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 10:52 PM Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com> wrote:
> > > From: Yuze Chi <chiyuze@google.com>
> []
> > > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h
> []
> > > @@ -580,4 +580,9 @@ struct bpf_link * usdt_manager_attach_usdt(struct usdt_manager *man,
> > >                                            const char *usdt_provider, const char *usdt_name,
> > >                                            __u64 usdt_cookie);
> > >
> > > +static inline bool is_pow_of_2(size_t x)
> > > +{
> > > +       return x && (x & (x - 1)) == 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  #endif /* __LIBBPF_LIBBPF_INTERNAL_H */
>
> If speed of execution is a potential issue, maybe:

It's not, as it's not in any sort of high-frequency hot path. But even
if it was, we should be careful with __builtin_popcount() because
depending on target CPU architecture __builtin_popcount() can be
turned into a helper function call instead of using hardware
instruction. But either way, keeping it simple is prefereable.

>
> #if __has_builtin(__builtin_popcount)
>         return __builtin_popcount(x) == 1;
> #else
>         return x && (x & (x-1)) == 0;
> #endif
>