On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 06:37:29AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 10:17:16PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 02:07:34PM +0800, Yangtao Li wrote:
> > > Just for better readability, no code logic change.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Yangtao Li <frank.li@xxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > fs/ext4/inode.c | 3 +--
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > > index d251d705c276..d121cde74522 100644
> > > --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > > +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > > @@ -2218,8 +2218,7 @@ static int mpage_process_page_bufs(struct mpage_da_data *mpd,
> > > {
> > > struct inode *inode = mpd->inode;
> > > int err;
> > > - ext4_lblk_t blocks = (i_size_read(inode) + i_blocksize(inode) - 1)
> > > - >> inode->i_blkbits;
> > > + ext4_lblk_t blocks = DIV_ROUND_UP(i_size_read(inode), i_blocksize(inode));
> > >
> >
> > Please don't do this. This makes the code compile down to a division, which is
> > far less efficient. I've verified this by checking the assembly generated.
>
> Which compiler is doing that?
$ gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 12.2.1 20230201
i_blocksize(inode) is not a constant, so this should not be particularly
surprising. One might hope that a / (1 << b) would be optimized into a >> b,
but that doesn't seem to happen.
- Eric
