On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 09:27:44PM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> 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?
Not sure what happened to this. Maybe resend at -rc1?
Will
