From: Rasmus Villemoes [mailto:linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Nice work! A few random comments/questions: > > - It does add some complexity, but I think a few comments would make it > more digestable. I'm open to adding some comments ... I need some time between writing the code and writing the comments to be sure what comments are useful. > - Hm, maybe I'm confused, and I certainly don't understand how the whole > radix tree works. But do you use every leaf node as an exceptional > entry initially, to allocate the first 62 ids from that level? This > code I do! And that question tells me one useful comment to add! > if ((bit + RADIX_TREE_EXCEPTIONAL_SHIFT) < > BITS_PER_LONG) { > bit += RADIX_TREE_EXCEPTIONAL_SHIFT; > radix_tree_iter_replace(root, &iter, slot, > (void *)((1UL << bit) | > RADIX_TREE_EXCEPTIONAL_ENTRY)); > *id = new; > return 0; > } > > operates on bit, which is the offset from index*IDA_BITMAP_BITS, and > it seems to create an exceptional entry somewhere down the tree > (which may of course be the root). > > But we don't seem to allocate another bit from that exceptional entry > ever unless it happened to sit at index 0; the code > > unsigned long tmp = (unsigned long)bitmap; > if (start < BITS_PER_LONG) { > unsigned tbit = find_next_zero_bit(&tmp, > BITS_PER_LONG, start); > if (tbit < BITS_PER_LONG) { > tmp |= 1UL << tbit; > rcu_assign_pointer(*slot, (void *)tmp); > *id = new + tbit - > RADIX_TREE_EXCEPTIONAL_SHIFT; > return 0; > } > } > > is only used for small values of start (though it does seem to > account for a non-zero value of new == iter.index * IDA_BITMAP_BITS). Ahh. You're reading the code wrong, and I wrote the code wrongly too, so it's clearly overly complex. I was testing with 'start' set to 0, allocating N entries, and then freeing them. If I'd set start to 1024 and allocated two entries, I'd've seen the failure. Please see the top commit here ("Improve IDA exceptional entry handling"): http://git.infradead.org/users/willy/linux-dax.git/shortlog/refs/heads/idr-2016-12-20 > - In the micro-optimization department, I think we should avoid > find_next_zero_bit on a single word, and instead use __ffs. Something > like (assuming we can use bit instead of start) > > if (bit + RADIX_TREE_EXCEPTIONAL_SHIFT < BITS_PER_LONG) { > tmp = (~(unsigned long)bitmap) >> (bit + RADIX_TREE_EXCEPTIONAL_SHIFT); > if (tmp) { > tbit = __ffs(tmp) + bit + RADIX_TREE_EXCEPTIONAL_SHIFT; > tmp = (unsigned long)bitmap | (1UL << tbit); > rcu_assign_pointer(*slot, (void *)tmp); > *id = new + tbit - RADIX_TREE_EXCEPTIONAL_SHIFT; > return 0; > } > } I'm certainly open to microoptimisations, but I'll have to think about this one for a bit. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
