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:   Mon, 19 Sep 2022 16:45:54 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexey Klimov <klimov.linux@gmail.com>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] lib/find_bit: optimize find_next_bit() functions
Message-ID: <YyhykvFCOskPAp59@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20220915020730.852234-1-yury.norov@gmail.com>
 <20220915020730.852234-4-yury.norov@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220915020730.852234-4-yury.norov@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 07:07:29PM -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
> Over the past couple years, the function _find_next_bit() was extended
> with parameters that modify its behavior to implement and- zero- and le-
> flavors. The parameters are passed at compile time, but current design
> prevents a compiler from optimizing out the conditionals.
> 
> As find_next_bit() API grows, I expect that more parameters will be added.
> Current design would require more conditional code in _find_next_bit(),
> which would bloat the helper even more and make it barely readable.
> 
> This patch replaces _find_next_bit() with a macro FIND_NEXT_BIT, and adds
> a set of wrappers, so that the compile-time optimizations become possible.
> 
> The common logic is moved to the new macro, and all flavors may be
> generated by providing a FETCH macro parameter, like in this example:
> 
>   #define FIND_NEXT_BIT(FETCH, MUNGE, size, start) ...
> 
>   find_next_xornot_and_bit(addr1, addr2, addr3, size, start)
>   {
> 	return FIND_NEXT_BIT(addr1[idx] ^ ~addr2[idx] & addr3[idx],
> 				/* nop */, size, start);
>   }
> 
> The FETCH may be of any complexity, as soon as it only refers the bitmap(s)
> and an iterator idx.
> 
> MUNGE is here to support _le code generation for BE builds. May be
> empty.
> 
> I ran find_bit_benchmark 16 times on top of 6.0-rc2 and 16 times on top
> of 6.0-rc2 + this series. The results for kvm/x86_64 are:
> 
>                       v6.0-rc2  Optimized       Difference  Z-score
> Random dense bitmap         ns         ns        ns      %
> find_next_bit:          787735     670546    117189   14.9     3.97
> find_next_zero_bit:     777492     664208    113284   14.6    10.51
> find_last_bit:          830925     687573    143352   17.3     2.35
> find_first_bit:        3874366    3306635    567731   14.7     1.84
> find_first_and_bit:   40677125   37739887   2937238    7.2     1.36
> find_next_and_bit:      347865     304456     43409   12.5     1.35
> 
> Random sparse bitmap
> find_next_bit:           19816      14021      5795   29.2     6.10
> find_next_zero_bit:    1318901    1223794     95107    7.2     1.41
> find_last_bit:           14573      13514      1059    7.3     6.92
> find_first_bit:        1313321    1249024     64297    4.9     1.53
> find_first_and_bit:       8921       8098       823    9.2     4.56
> find_next_and_bit:        9796       7176      2620   26.7     5.39
> 
> Where the statistics is significant (z-score > 3), the improvement
> is ~15%.
> 
> According to the bloat-o-meter, the Image size is 10-11K less:
> 
> x86_64/defconfig:
> add/remove: 32/14 grow/shrink: 61/782 up/down: 6344/-16521 (-10177)
> 
> arm64/defconfig:
> add/remove: 3/2 grow/shrink: 50/714 up/down: 608/-11556 (-10948)

...

>  /*

Seems like you wanted this to be a kernel doc, but it isn't right now.

> - * This is a common helper function for find_next_bit, find_next_zero_bit, and
> - * find_next_and_bit. The differences are:
> - *  - The "invert" argument, which is XORed with each fetched word before
> - *    searching it for one bits.
> - *  - The optional "addr2", which is anded with "addr1" if present.
> + * Common helper for find_next_bit() function family

In such case this should start with a name of the macro

 * FIND_NEXT_BIT - ...

> + * @FETCH: The expression that fetches and pre-processes each word of bitmap(s)
> + * @MUNGE: The expression that post-processes a word containing found bit (may be empty)
> + * @size: The bitmap size in bits
> + * @start: The bitnumber to start searching at
>   */

...

> +#define FIND_NEXT_BIT(FETCH, MUNGE, size, start)				\
> +({										\
> +	unsigned long mask, idx, tmp, sz = (size), __start = (start);		\
> +										\
> +	if (unlikely(__start >= sz))						\
> +		goto out;							\
> +										\
> +	mask = MUNGE(BITMAP_FIRST_WORD_MASK(__start));				\
> +	idx = __start / BITS_PER_LONG;						\
> +										\
> +	for (tmp = (FETCH) & mask; !tmp; tmp = (FETCH)) {			\
> +		if ((idx + 1) * BITS_PER_LONG >= sz)				\
> +			goto out;						\
> +		idx++;								\
> +	}									\
> +										\
> +	sz = min(idx * BITS_PER_LONG + __ffs(MUNGE(tmp)), sz);			\
> +out:										\

I dunno if GCC expression limits the scope of goto labels, but on the safe side
you can add a prefix to it, so it becomes:

FIND_NEXT_BIT_out:

(or alike).

> +	sz;									\
> +})

...

> +unsigned long _find_next_zero_bit_le(const unsigned long *addr, unsigned
> +		long size, unsigned long offset)

Usually we don't split parameters between lines.

...

> +unsigned long _find_next_bit_le(const unsigned long  *addr, unsigned
> +		long size, unsigned long offset)

Ditto.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko