On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 10:35:50AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 05:59:16PM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> > (CC: Alexey Klimov)
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 3:25 AM Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 05, 2020 at 08:54:06AM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > > ARM64 doesn't implement find_first_{zero}_bit in arch code and doesn't
> > > > enable it in config. It leads to using find_next_bit() which is less
> > > > efficient:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> > > > index 1515f6f153a0..2b90ef1f548e 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> > > > @@ -106,6 +106,7 @@ config ARM64
> > > > select GENERIC_CPU_AUTOPROBE
> > > > select GENERIC_CPU_VULNERABILITIES
> > > > select GENERIC_EARLY_IOREMAP
> > > > + select GENERIC_FIND_FIRST_BIT
> > >
> > > Does this actually make any measurable difference? The disassembly with
> > > or without this is _very_ similar for me (clang 11).
> > >
> > > Will
> >
> > On A-53 find_first_bit() is almost twice faster than find_next_bit(),
> > according to
> > lib/find_bit_benchmark. (Thanks to Alexey for testing.)
>
> I guess it's more compiler dependent than anything else, and it's a pity
> that find_next_bit() isn't implemented in terms of the generic
> find_first_bit() tbh, but if the numbers are as you suggest then I don't
> have a problem selecting this on arm64.
Ping?
