Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.36 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.36;
Date:   Thu, 7 Dec 2023 16:35:47 +0300
From:   Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@gmail.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc:     Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>,
        Jose Abreu <joabreu@synopsys.com>,
        Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@synopsys.com>,
        Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@gmail.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 09/16] net: mdio: Add Synopsys DW XPCS
 management interface support
Message-ID: <jqwhgthwxfge6y4nv5mdnojqu76m4pi2mt2x6kwqiuqntcwj67@mewh42eey5ny>
References: <20231205103559.9605-1-fancer.lancer@gmail.com>
 <20231205103559.9605-10-fancer.lancer@gmail.com>
 <20231205133205.3309ab91@device.home>
 <cv6oo27tqbfst3jrgtkg7bcxmeshadtzoomn2xgnzh2arz4nwy@wq5k7oygto6n>
 <15e6857a-b1d1-465a-945e-6f31edac62fb@lunn.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <15e6857a-b1d1-465a-945e-6f31edac62fb@lunn.ch>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Andrew

On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 06:01:30PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > You shouldn't use inline in C files, only in headers.
> > 
> > Could you please clarify why? I failed to find such requirement in the
> > coding style doc. Moreover there are multiple examples of using the
> > static-inline-ers in the C files in the kernel including the net/mdio
> > subsystem.
> 

> The compiler does a better job at deciding what to inline than we
> humans do. If you can show the compiler is doing it wrong, then we
> might accept them.

In general I would have agreed with you especially if the methods were
heavier than what they are:
static inline ptrdiff_t dw_xpcs_mmio_addr_format(int dev, int reg)
{               
        return FIELD_PREP(0x1f0000, dev) | FIELD_PREP(0xffff, reg);
}               
        
static inline u16 dw_xpcs_mmio_addr_page(ptrdiff_t csr)
{       
        return FIELD_GET(0x1fff00, csr);
}       

static inline ptrdiff_t dw_xpcs_mmio_addr_offset(ptrdiff_t csr)
{
        return FIELD_GET(0xff, csr);
}

> But in general, netdev does not like inline in .C
> file.

I see. I'll do as you say if you don't change your mind after my
reasoning below.

> Also, nothing in MDIO is hot path, it spends a lot of time
> waiting for a slow bus. So inline is likely to just bloat the code for
> no gain.

I would have been absolutely with you in this matter, if we were talking
about a normal MDIO bus. In this case the devices are accessed over
the system IO-memory. So the bus isn't that slow.

Regarding the compiler knowing better when to inline the code. Here is
what it does with the methods above. If the inline keyword is
specified the compiler will inline all three methods. If the keyword isn't
specified then dw_xpcs_mmio_addr_format() won't be inlined while the rest
two functions will be. So the only part at consideration is the
dw_xpcs_mmio_addr_format() method since the rest of the functions are
inlined anyway.

The dw_xpcs_mmio_addr_format() function body is of the 5 asm
instructions length (on MIPS). Since the function call in this case
requires two jump instructions (to function and back), one instruction
to save the previous return address on stack and two instructions for
the function arguments, the trade-off of having non-inlined function
are those five additional instructions on each call. There are four
dw_xpcs_mmio_addr_format() calls. So here is what we get in both
cases:
inlined:     5 func ins * 4 calls = 20 ins
non-inlined: (5 func + 1 jump) ins + (1 jump + 1 ra + 2 arg) ins * 4 calls  = 22 ins
but seeing the return address needs to be saved anyway in the callers
here is what we finally get:
non-inlined: (5 func + 1 jump) ins + (1 jump + 2 arg) ins * 4 calls  = 18 ins

So unless I am mistaken in some of the aspects if we have the function
non-inlined then we'll save 2 instructions in the object file, but
each call would require additional _4_ instructions to execute (2
jumps and 2 arg creations), which makes the function execution almost
two times longer than it would have been should it was inlined. IMO in
this case saving 2 instructions of the object file isn't worth than
getting rid from four instructions on each call seeing the DW XPCS
MCI/APB3 buses are the memory IO interfaces which don't require any
long-time waits to perform the ops. Thus I'd suggest to keep the
inline keywords specified here.

What is your conclusion?

-Serge(y)

> 
>    Andrew