[PATCH v3 1/5] lib/bitmap: add bitmap_{set,get}_value()
Alexander Potapenko
glider at google.com
Mon Jul 17 09:29:52 PDT 2023
On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 5:03 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 04:53:51PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > I remember that this construction may bring horrible code on some architectures
> > > > with some version(s) of the compiler (*).
> > >
> > > Wow, even the trunk Clang and GCC seem to generate better code for
> > > your version of this line: https://godbolt.org/z/36Kqxhe6j
> >
> > Oh wait.
> > First, my Godbolt reproducer is incorrect, it is using sizeof(unsigned
> > long) instead of 8 * sizeof(unsigned long) for BITS_PER_LONG.
>
> Still slightly better. And note, that the same GENMASK() is used at the
> beginning of the function. Compiler actually might cache it.
I think that the compiler might consider this transformation invalid
because "GENMASK(nbits - 1, 0) << offset" and "GENMASK(nbits + offset
- 1, offset)" have different values in the case "nbits + offset"
exceed 64.
Restricting the domain of bitmap_set_value() might result in better
code, but it is easier to stick to your version, which prevents the
overflow.
> > > > To fix that I found an easy refactoring:
> > > >
> > > > map[index] &= ~(GENMASK(nbits, 0) << offset));
> > > >
> >
> > Second, the line above should probably be:
> > map[index] &= ~(GENMASK(nbits - 1, 0) << offset));
> >
> > , right?
>
> Yes.
This "nbits vs. nbits - 1" was not detected by test_set_get_value(),
so I'll add an extra test case for it.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list