lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86: Change x86 to use generic find_next_bit
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 09:01:04PM +0100, Alexander van Heukelum wrote:
> x86: Change x86 to use the generic find_next_bit implementation
>
> The versions with inline assembly are in fact slower on the machines I
> tested them on (in userspace) (Athlon XP 2800+, p4-like Xeon 2.8GHz, AMD
> Opteron 270). The i386-version needed a fix similar to 06024f21 to avoid
> crashing the benchmark.
>
> Benchmark using: gcc -fomit-frame-pointer -Os. For each bitmap size
> 1...512, for each possible bitmap with one bit set, for each possible
> offset: find the position of the first bit starting at offset. If you
> follow ;). Times include setup of the bitmap and checking of the
> results.
>
> Athlon Xeon Opteron 32/64bit
> x86-specific: 0m3.692s 0m2.820s 0m3.196s / 0m2.480s
> generic: 0m2.622s 0m1.662s 0m2.100s / 0m1.572s
>
> If the bitmap size is not a multiple of BITS_PER_LONG, and no set
> (cleared) bit is found, find_next_bit (find_next_zero_bit) returns a
> value outside of the range [0,size]. The generic version always returns
> exactly size. The generic version also uses unsigned long everywhere,
> while the x86 versions use a mishmash of int, unsigned (int), long and
> unsigned long.
>

This problem is observed on x86_64 and powerpc also. We need a long
aligned address for test_bit, set_bit find_bit etc. In ext4 we have
to make sure we align the address passed to

ext4_test_bit
ext4_set_bit
ext4_find_next_zero_bit
ext4_find_next_bit

fs/ext4/mballoc.c have some examples.

-aneesh


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-13 13:47    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans