On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 7:28 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 18:31:39 -0700
> Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > +static u64 hist_field_div(struct hist_field *hist_field,
> > + struct tracing_map_elt *elt,
> > + struct trace_buffer *buffer,
> > + struct ring_buffer_event *rbe,
> > + void *event)
> > +{
> > + struct hist_field *operand1 = hist_field->operands[0];
> > + struct hist_field *operand2 = hist_field->operands[1];
> > +
> > + u64 val1 = operand1->fn(operand1, elt, buffer, rbe, event);
> > + u64 val2 = operand2->fn(operand2, elt, buffer, rbe, event);
> > +
> > + /* Return -1 for the undefined case */
> > + if (!val2)
> > + return -1;
> > +
> > + return div64_u64(val1, val2);
> > +}
> > +
>
> I wonder if you should add a shift operator as well?
>
> I mean, if for some reason you want to divide by a power of two, then why
> us the division. Especially if this is on a 32 bit machine.
>
> Of course, the parsing could detect that. If the divisor is a constant. Or
> we could even optimize the above with:
>
> if (!val2)
> return -1;
>
> if (!(val2 & (val2 - 1))
> return val1 >> __ffs64(val2);
>
> Which should be faster than a divide, and even if it isn't a power of two,
> the subtract and & should be in the noise compared to the divide.
>
> Note, the above can be added to this. I'm not suggesting changing this
> patch.
Is it worth adding something like this for the multiplication case as well?
- Kalesh
>
> -- Steve
