NACK.
I'm sorry, but it seems you have to send v6. See comments inline.
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 02:13:34PM +0100, Clement Courbet wrote:
> We've measured that we spend ~0.6% of sys cpu time in cpumask_next_and().
> It's essentially a joined iteration in search for a non-zero bit, which
> is currently implemented as a lookup join (find a nonzero bit on the
> lhs, lookup the rhs to see if it's set there).
>
> Implement a direct join (find a nonzero bit on the incrementally built
> join).
>
> For cpumask_next_and, direct benchmarking shows that it's 1.17x to 14x
> faster with a geometric mean of 2.1 on 32 CPUs [1]. No impact on memory
> usage.
>
> Also added generic bitmap benchmarks in the new `test_find_bit` module
> for the reference and new implementations (results: see
> `find_next_and_bit` and `find_next_and_bit_ref` in [2] and [3] below).
> Note that on Arm (), the new c implementation still outperforms the
> old one that uses c+ the asm implementation of `find_next_bit` [3].
What is 'c+'? Is it typo?
If you find generic find_bit() on arm faster that asm one, we'd definitely
drop that piece of asm. I have this check it in my long list.
> [1] Approximate benchmark code:
>
> ```
> unsigned long src1p[nr_cpumask_longs] = {pattern1};
> unsigned long src2p[nr_cpumask_longs] = {pattern2};
> for (/*a bunch of repetitions*/) {
> for (int n = -1; n <= nr_cpu_ids; ++n) {
> asm volatile("" : "+rm"(src1p)); // prevent any optimization
> asm volatile("" : "+rm"(src2p));
> unsigned long result = cpumask_next_and(n, src1p, src2p);
> asm volatile("" : "+rm"(result));
> }
> }
> ```
>
> Results:
> pattern1 pattern2 time_before/time_after
> 0x0000ffff 0x0000ffff 1.65
> 0x0000ffff 0x00005555 2.24
> 0x0000ffff 0x00001111 2.94
> 0x0000ffff 0x00000000 14.0
> 0x00005555 0x0000ffff 1.67
> 0x00005555 0x00005555 1.71
> 0x00005555 0x00001111 1.90
> 0x00005555 0x00000000 6.58
> 0x00001111 0x0000ffff 1.46
> 0x00001111 0x00005555 1.49
> 0x00001111 0x00001111 1.45
> 0x00001111 0x00000000 3.10
> 0x00000000 0x0000ffff 1.18
> 0x00000000 0x00005555 1.18
> 0x00000000 0x00001111 1.17
> 0x00000000 0x00000000 1.25
> -----------------------------
> geo.mean 2.06
>
> [2] test_find_next_bit, X86 (skylake)
>
> [ 3913.477422] Start testing find_bit() with random-filled bitmap
> [ 3913.477847] find_next_bit: 160868 cycles, 16484 iterations
> [ 3913.477933] find_next_zero_bit: 169542 cycles, 16285 iterations
> [ 3913.478036] find_last_bit: 201638 cycles, 16483 iterations
> [ 3913.480214] find_first_bit: 4353244 cycles, 16484 iterations
> [ 3913.480216] Start testing find_next_and_bit() with random-filled
> bitmap
> [ 3913.481027] find_next_and_bit_ref: 319444 cycles, 8216 iterations
> [ 3913.481074] find_next_and_bit: 89604 cycles, 8216 iterations
> [ 3913.481075] Start testing find_bit() with sparse bitmap
> [ 3913.481078] find_next_bit: 2536 cycles, 66 iterations
> [ 3913.481252] find_next_zero_bit: 344404 cycles, 32703 iterations
> [ 3913.481255] find_last_bit: 2006 cycles, 66 iterations
> [ 3913.481265] find_first_bit: 17488 cycles, 66 iterations
> [ 3913.481266] Start testing find_next_and_bit() with sparse bitmap
> [ 3913.481270] find_next_and_bit_ref: 2486 cycles, 1 iterations
> [ 3913.481272] find_next_and_bit: 764 cycles, 1 iterations
>
> [3] test_find_next_bit, arm (v7 odroid XU3).
>
> [ 267.206928] Start testing find_bit() with random-filled bitmap
> [ 267.214752] find_next_bit: 4474 cycles, 16419 iterations
> [ 267.221850] find_next_zero_bit: 5976 cycles, 16350 iterations
> [ 267.229294] find_last_bit: 4209 cycles, 16419 iterations
> [ 267.279131] find_first_bit: 1032991 cycles, 16420 iterations
> [ 267.286265] Start testing find_next_and_bit() with random-filled
> bitmap
> [ 267.294895] find_next_and_bit_ref: 7572 cycles, 8140 iterations
> [ 267.302386] find_next_and_bit: 2290 cycles, 8140 iterations
> [ 267.309422] Start testing find_bit() with sparse bitmap
> [ 267.316054] find_next_bit: 191 cycles, 66 iterations
> [ 267.322726] find_next_zero_bit: 8758 cycles, 32703 iterations
> [ 267.329803] find_last_bit: 84 cycles, 66 iterations
> [ 267.336169] find_first_bit: 4118 cycles, 66 iterations
> [ 267.342627] Start testing find_next_and_bit() with sparse bitmap
> [ 267.349992] find_next_and_bit_ref: 193 cycles, 1 iterations
> [ 267.356919] find_next_and_bit: 91 cycles, 1 iterations
This is old version of test based on get_cycles. New one is based on
ktime_get and has other minor changes. I think you'd rerun tests to
not confuse readers. New version is already in linux-next.
> Signed-off-by: Clement Courbet <courbet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Refactored _find_next_common_bit into _find_next_bit., as suggested
> by Yury Norov. This has no adverse effects on the performance side,
> as the compiler successfully inlines the code.
>
> Changes in v3:
> - Fixes find_next_and_bit() declaration.
> - Synchronize _find_next_bit_le() with _find_next_bit()
> - Synchronize the code in tools/lib/find_bit.c
> - Add find_next_and_bit to guard code
> - Fix invert value (bad sync with our internal tree on which I'm doing
> the testing).
>
> Changes in v4:
> - Mark _find_next_bit() inline.
>
> Changes in v5:
> - Added benchmarks to test_find_bit.cc
> - Fixed arm compilation: added missing header to arm bitops.h
>
> arch/arm/include/asm/bitops.h | 1 +
> arch/unicore32/include/asm/bitops.h | 2 ++
> include/asm-generic/bitops/find.h | 20 +++++++++++
> include/linux/bitmap.h | 6 +++-
> lib/cpumask.c | 9 ++---
> lib/find_bit.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> lib/test_find_bit.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> tools/include/asm-generic/bitops/find.h | 16 +++++++++
> tools/lib/find_bit.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++------
> 9 files changed, 168 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/bitops.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/bitops.h
> index ce5ee762ed66..4cab9bb823fb 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/bitops.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/bitops.h
> @@ -338,6 +338,7 @@ static inline int find_next_bit_le(const void *p, int size, int offset)
>
> #endif
>
> +#include <asm-generic/bitops/find.h>
> #include <asm-generic/bitops/le.h>
>
> /*
> diff --git a/arch/unicore32/include/asm/bitops.h b/arch/unicore32/include/asm/bitops.h
> index 401f597bc38c..c0cbdbe17168 100644
> --- a/arch/unicore32/include/asm/bitops.h
> +++ b/arch/unicore32/include/asm/bitops.h
> @@ -44,4 +44,6 @@ static inline int fls(int x)
> #define find_first_bit find_first_bit
> #define find_first_zero_bit find_first_zero_bit
>
> +#include <asm-generic/bitops/find.h>
> +
> #endif /* __UNICORE_BITOPS_H__ */
> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/bitops/find.h b/include/asm-generic/bitops/find.h
> index 1ba611e16fa0..8a1ee10014de 100644
> --- a/include/asm-generic/bitops/find.h
> +++ b/include/asm-generic/bitops/find.h
> @@ -16,6 +16,22 @@ extern unsigned long find_next_bit(const unsigned long *addr, unsigned long
> size, unsigned long offset);
> #endif
>
> +#ifndef find_next_and_bit
> +/**
> + * find_next_and_bit - find the next set bit in both memory regions
> + * @addr1: The first address to base the search on
> + * @addr2: The second address to base the search on
> + * @offset: The bitnumber to start searching at
> + * @size: The bitmap size in bits
> + *
> + * Returns the bit number for the next set bit
> + * If no bits are set, returns @size.
> + */
> +extern unsigned long find_next_and_bit(const unsigned long *addr1,
> + const unsigned long *addr2, unsigned long size,
> + unsigned long offset);
> +#endif
> +
> #ifndef find_next_zero_bit
> /**
> * find_next_zero_bit - find the next cleared bit in a memory region
> @@ -55,8 +71,12 @@ extern unsigned long find_first_zero_bit(const unsigned long *addr,
> unsigned long size);
> #else /* CONFIG_GENERIC_FIND_FIRST_BIT */
>
> +#ifndef find_first_bit
> #define find_first_bit(addr, size) find_next_bit((addr), (size), 0)
> +#endif
> +#ifndef find_first_zero_bit
> #define find_first_zero_bit(addr, size) find_next_zero_bit((addr), (size), 0)
> +#endif
How this change related to the find_next_and_bit?
Does unguarded version breaks something? Please elaborate.
> #endif /* CONFIG_GENERIC_FIND_FIRST_BIT */
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/bitmap.h b/include/linux/bitmap.h
> index 3489253e38fc..45a9e169d0fd 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bitmap.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bitmap.h
> @@ -83,8 +83,12 @@
> * test_and_change_bit(bit, addr) Change bit and return old value
> * find_first_zero_bit(addr, nbits) Position first zero bit in *addr
> * find_first_bit(addr, nbits) Position first set bit in *addr
> - * find_next_zero_bit(addr, nbits, bit) Position next zero bit in *addr >= bit
> + * find_next_zero_bit(addr, nbits, bit)
> + * Position next zero bit in *addr >= bit
> * find_next_bit(addr, nbits, bit) Position next set bit in *addr >= bit
> + * find_next_and_bit(addr1, addr2, nbits, bit)
> + * Same as find_first_bit, but in
> + * (*addr1 & *addr2)
Nit. Addr1, addr2 - doesn't sound self-explainative. What about
find_next_and_bit(addr1, and_map, nbits, bit), or something like this?
> *
> */
>
> diff --git a/lib/cpumask.c b/lib/cpumask.c
> index 35fe142ebb5e..beca6244671a 100644
> --- a/lib/cpumask.c
> +++ b/lib/cpumask.c
> @@ -33,10 +33,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpumask_next);
> int cpumask_next_and(int n, const struct cpumask *src1p,
> const struct cpumask *src2p)
> {
> - while ((n = cpumask_next(n, src1p)) < nr_cpu_ids)
> - if (cpumask_test_cpu(n, src2p))
> - break;
> - return n;
> + /* -1 is a legal arg here. */
> + if (n != -1)
> + cpumask_check(n);
> + return find_next_and_bit(cpumask_bits(src1p), cpumask_bits(src2p),
> + nr_cpumask_bits, n + 1);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpumask_next_and);
>
> diff --git a/lib/find_bit.c b/lib/find_bit.c
> index 6ed74f78380c..ee3df93ba69a 100644
> --- a/lib/find_bit.c
> +++ b/lib/find_bit.c
> @@ -21,22 +21,29 @@
> #include <linux/export.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
>
> -#if !defined(find_next_bit) || !defined(find_next_zero_bit)
> +#if !defined(find_next_bit) || !defined(find_next_zero_bit) || \
> + !defined(find_next_and_bit)
>
> /*
> - * This is a common helper function for find_next_bit and
> - * find_next_zero_bit. The difference is the "invert" argument, which
> - * is XORed with each fetched word before searching it for one bits.
> + * This is a common helper function for find_next_bit, find_next_zero_bit, and
> + * find_next_and_bit. The differences are:
> + * - The "invert" argument, which is XORed with each fetched word before
> + * searching it for one bits.
> + * - The optional "addr2", which is anded with "addr1" if present.
The optional "and", which is anded with "addr" if present. - sounds
better, isn't?
> */
> -static unsigned long _find_next_bit(const unsigned long *addr,
> - unsigned long nbits, unsigned long start, unsigned long invert)
> +static inline unsigned long _find_next_bit(const unsigned long *addr1,
> + const unsigned long *addr2, unsigned long nbits,
> + unsigned long start, unsigned long invert)
> {
> unsigned long tmp;
>
> if (unlikely(start >= nbits))
> return nbits;
>
> - tmp = addr[start / BITS_PER_LONG] ^ invert;
> + tmp = addr1[start / BITS_PER_LONG];
> + if (addr2)
> + tmp &= addr2[start / BITS_PER_LONG];
> + tmp ^= invert;
>
> /* Handle 1st word. */
> tmp &= BITMAP_FIRST_WORD_MASK(start);
> @@ -47,7 +54,10 @@ static unsigned long _find_next_bit(const unsigned long *addr,
> if (start >= nbits)
> return nbits;
>
> - tmp = addr[start / BITS_PER_LONG] ^ invert;
> + tmp = addr1[start / BITS_PER_LONG];
> + if (addr2)
> + tmp &= addr2[start / BITS_PER_LONG];
> + tmp ^= invert;
> }
>
> return min(start + __ffs(tmp), nbits);
> @@ -61,7 +71,7 @@ static unsigned long _find_next_bit(const unsigned long *addr,
> unsigned long find_next_bit(const unsigned long *addr, unsigned long size,
> unsigned long offset)
> {
> - return _find_next_bit(addr, size, offset, 0UL);
> + return _find_next_bit(addr, NULL, size, offset, 0UL);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(find_next_bit);
> #endif
> @@ -70,11 +80,21 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(find_next_bit);
> unsigned long find_next_zero_bit(const unsigned long *addr, unsigned long size,
> unsigned long offset)
> {
> - return _find_next_bit(addr, size, offset, ~0UL);
> + return _find_next_bit(addr, NULL, size, offset, ~0UL);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(find_next_zero_bit);
> #endif
>
> +#if !defined(find_next_and_bit)
> +unsigned long find_next_and_bit(const unsigned long *addr1,
> + const unsigned long *addr2, unsigned long size,
> + unsigned long offset)
> +{
> + return _find_next_bit(addr1, addr2, size, offset, 0UL);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(find_next_and_bit);
> +#endif
> +
> #ifndef find_first_bit
> /*
> * Find the first set bit in a memory region.
> @@ -146,15 +166,19 @@ static inline unsigned long ext2_swab(const unsigned long y)
> }
>
> #if !defined(find_next_bit_le) || !defined(find_next_zero_bit_le)
> -static unsigned long _find_next_bit_le(const unsigned long *addr,
> - unsigned long nbits, unsigned long start, unsigned long invert)
> +static inline unsigned long _find_next_bit_le(const unsigned long *addr1,
> + const unsigned long *addr2, unsigned long nbits,
> + unsigned long start, unsigned long invert)
> {
> unsigned long tmp;
>
> if (unlikely(start >= nbits))
> return nbits;
>
> - tmp = addr[start / BITS_PER_LONG] ^ invert;
> + tmp = addr1[start / BITS_PER_LONG];
> + if (addr2)
> + tmp &= addr2[start / BITS_PER_LONG];
> + tmp ^= invert;
>
> /* Handle 1st word. */
> tmp &= ext2_swab(BITMAP_FIRST_WORD_MASK(start));
> @@ -165,7 +189,10 @@ static unsigned long _find_next_bit_le(const unsigned long *addr,
> if (start >= nbits)
> return nbits;
>
> - tmp = addr[start / BITS_PER_LONG] ^ invert;
> + tmp = addr1[start / BITS_PER_LONG];
> + if (addr2)
> + tmp &= addr2[start / BITS_PER_LONG];
> + tmp ^= invert;
> }
>
> return min(start + __ffs(ext2_swab(tmp)), nbits);
> @@ -176,7 +203,7 @@ static unsigned long _find_next_bit_le(const unsigned long *addr,
> unsigned long find_next_zero_bit_le(const void *addr, unsigned
> long size, unsigned long offset)
> {
> - return _find_next_bit_le(addr, size, offset, ~0UL);
> + return _find_next_bit_le(addr, NULL, size, offset, ~0UL);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(find_next_zero_bit_le);
> #endif
> @@ -185,7 +212,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(find_next_zero_bit_le);
> unsigned long find_next_bit_le(const void *addr, unsigned
> long size, unsigned long offset)
> {
> - return _find_next_bit_le(addr, size, offset, 0UL);
> + return _find_next_bit_le(addr, NULL, size, offset, 0UL);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(find_next_bit_le);
> #endif
> diff --git a/lib/test_find_bit.c b/lib/test_find_bit.c
> index f4394a36f9aa..90773efa4694 100644
> --- a/lib/test_find_bit.c
> +++ b/lib/test_find_bit.c
> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
> #define SPARSE 500
>
> static DECLARE_BITMAP(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN) __initdata;
> +static DECLARE_BITMAP(bitmap2, BITMAP_LEN) __initdata;
>
> /*
> * This is Schlemiel the Painter's algorithm. It should be called after
> @@ -107,6 +108,42 @@ static int __init test_find_last_bit(const void *bitmap, unsigned long len)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int __init test_find_next_and_bit(const void *bitmap,
> + const void *bitmap2, unsigned long len)
> +{
> + unsigned long i, cnt;
> + cycles_t cycles;
> +
> + cycles = get_cycles();
Please switch to ktime_get, as other tests do.
> + for (cnt = i = 0; i < BITMAP_LEN; cnt++)
> + i = find_next_and_bit(bitmap, bitmap2, BITMAP_LEN, i+1);
> + cycles = get_cycles() - cycles;
> + pr_err("find_next_and_bit: %ld cycles, %ld iterations\n", (long)cycles,
> + cnt);
Use pretty formatting here to align with others tests output.
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int __init test_find_next_and_bit_ref(const void *bitmap,
> + const void *bitmap2, unsigned long len)
> +{
> + unsigned long i, cnt;
> + cycles_t cycles;
> +
> + cycles = get_cycles();
> + for (cnt = i = 0; i < BITMAP_LEN; cnt++)
> + while ((i = find_next_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN, i + 1))
> + < BITMAP_LEN)
Nit: while (i < BITMAP_LEN) {
i = find_next_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN, i + 1);
> + if (test_bit(i, bitmap2))
> + break;
}
> +
> + cycles = get_cycles() - cycles;
> + pr_err("find_next_and_bit_ref: %ld cycles, %ld iterations\n",
> + (long)cycles, cnt);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
I don't understand the purpose of this. It's obviously clear that
test_find_next_and_bit cannot be slower than test_find_next_and_bit_ref
We don't have 'reference' implementations for other functions here.
If you still think that you need it, please introduce
find_next_and_bit_ref() to make the purpose of test clear. (I spent
more that a minute to understand what happens here, and my first
suggestion was wrong.)
> static int __init find_bit_test(void)
> {
> unsigned long nbits = BITMAP_LEN / SPARSE;
> @@ -114,23 +151,31 @@ static int __init find_bit_test(void)
> pr_err("\nStart testing find_bit() with random-filled bitmap\n");
>
> get_random_bytes(bitmap, sizeof(bitmap));
> + get_random_bytes(bitmap2, sizeof(bitmap2));
>
> test_find_next_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
> test_find_next_zero_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
> test_find_last_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
> test_find_first_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
> + test_find_next_and_bit_ref(bitmap, bitmap2, BITMAP_LEN);
> + test_find_next_and_bit(bitmap, bitmap2, BITMAP_LEN);
>
> pr_err("\nStart testing find_bit() with sparse bitmap\n");
>
> bitmap_zero(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
> + bitmap_zero(bitmap2, BITMAP_LEN);
>
> - while (nbits--)
> + while (nbits--) {
> __set_bit(prandom_u32() % BITMAP_LEN, bitmap);
> + __set_bit(prandom_u32() % BITMAP_LEN, bitmap2);
> + }
>
> test_find_next_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
> test_find_next_zero_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
> test_find_last_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
> test_find_first_bit(bitmap, BITMAP_LEN);
> + test_find_next_and_bit_ref(bitmap, bitmap2, BITMAP_LEN);
> + test_find_next_and_bit(bitmap, bitmap2, BITMAP_LEN);
For sparse bitmaps it will be like traversing zero-bitmaps. I doubt
this numbers will be representative. Do we need this test at all?
> return 0;
> }
Yury
