From: Pavel Begunkov
> Sent: 13 December 2020 22:33
>
> On 11/12/2020 02:01, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 05:12:44PM +0000, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> >> On 19/11/2020 17:03, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 03:29:43PM +0000, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> >>>> The problem here is that iov_iter_is_*() helpers check types for
> >>>> equality, but all iterate_* helpers do bitwise ands. This confuses
> >>>> a compiler, so even if some cases were handled separately with
> >>>> iov_iter_is_*(), it can't eliminate and skip unreachable branches in
> >>>> following iterate*().
> >>>
> >>> I think we need to kill the iov_iter_is_* helpers, renumber to not do
> >>> the pointless bitmask and just check for equality (might turn into a
> >>> bunch of nice switch statements actually).
> >>
> >> There are uses like below though, and that would also add some overhead
> >> on iov_iter_type(), so it's not apparent to me which version would be
> >> cleaner/faster in the end. But yeah, we can experiment after landing
> >> this patch.
> >>
> >> if (type & (ITER_BVEC|ITER_KVEC))
> >
> > There are exactly 3 such places, and all of them would've been just as well
> > with case ITER_BVEC: case ITER_KVEC: ... in a switch.
> >
> > Hmm... I wonder which would work better:
> >
> > enum iter_type {
> > ITER_IOVEC = 0,
> > ITER_KVEC = 2,
> > ITER_BVEC = 4,
> > ITER_PIPE = 6,
> > ITER_DISCARD = 8,
> > };
> > iov_iter_type(iter) (((iter)->type) & ~1)
> > iov_iter_rw(iter) (((iter)->type) & 1)
> >
> > or
> >
> > enum iter_type {
> > ITER_IOVEC,
> > ITER_KVEC,
> > ITER_BVEC,
> > ITER_PIPE,
> > ITER_DISCARD,
> > };
> > iov_iter_type(iter) (((iter)->type) & (~0U>>1))
> > // callers of iov_iter_rw() are almost all comparing with explicit READ or WRITE
> > iov_iter_rw(iter) (((iter)->type) & ~(~0U>>1) ? WRITE : READ)
> > with places like iov_iter_kvec() doing
> > i->type = ITER_KVEC | ((direction == WRITE) ? BIT(31) : 0);
> >
> > Preferences?
>
> For the bitmask version (with this patch) we have most of
> iov_iter_type() completely optimised out. E.g. identical
>
> iov_iter_type(i) & ITER_IOVEC <=> iter->type & ITER_IOVEC
>
> It's also nice to have iov_iter_rw() to be just
> (type & 1), operations with which can be optimised in a handful of ways.
>
> Unless the compiler would be able to heavily optimise switches,
> e.g. to out-of-memory/calculation-based jump tables, that I doubt,
> I'd personally leave it be. Though, not like it should matter much.
The advantage of the bit-masks is that the 'usual' options can
be tested for together. So the code can be (for example):
if (likely(iter->type & (ITER_IOVEC | ITER_PIPE) {
if (likely((iter->type & ITER_IOVEC)) {
... code for iovec
} else [
... code for pipe
}
} else if (iter->type & ITER_BVEC) {
... code for bvec
} else if (iter->type & ITER_KVEC) {
.. code for kvec
} else {
.. must be discard
}
I'm not sure of the best order though.
You might want 3 bits in the first test.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
