Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 23:59:17 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@breakpoint.cc>
To: Chinmay V S <chinmay.v.s@pathpartnertech.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cvs268@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        sebastian@breakpoint.cc, arjan@linux.intel.com,
        jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] [timer] Optimise apply_slack() for size and speed.
Message-ID: <20120202225917.GA1189@kibibi>
References: <1328002652-7700-1-git-send-email-chinmay.v.s@pathpartnertech.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1328002652-7700-1-git-send-email-chinmay.v.s@pathpartnertech.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1131
Lines: 30

* Chinmay V S | 2012-01-31 15:07:32 [+0530]:

>This patch modifies the masking logic to a bit-shift logic, therby
>reducing the complexity and number of operations. Thus obtaining a minor
>speed-up.
>diff --git a/kernel/timer.c b/kernel/timer.c
>index a297ffc..0379658 100644
>--- a/kernel/timer.c
>+++ b/kernel/timer.c
>@@ -785,9 +785,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(mod_timer_pending);
>@@ -811,9 +809,7 @@ unsigned long apply_slack(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned long expires)
> 
> 	bit = find_last_bit(&mask, BITS_PER_LONG);
> 
>-	mask = (1 << bit) - 1;
>-
>-	expires_limit = expires_limit & ~(mask);
>+	expires_limit = (expires_limit >> bit) << bit;

The question is whether a shift left is more efficient compared to an
and operation. Besides that you save atleast one operation because you
don't need to load -1 into a register for creating a mask. So it looks
like less code.

Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/