> > > >+ /*
> > > >+ * If the region state is active, mctx must be allocated.
> > > >+ * In this case, check whether the region is evicted or
> > > >+ * mctx allcation fail.
> > > >+ */
> > > >+ if (unlikely(!srgn->mctx)) {
> > > >+ dev_err(&hpb->sdev_ufs_lu->sdev_dev,
> > > >+ "no mctx in region %d subregion %d.\n",
> > > >+ srgn->rgn_idx, srgn->srgn_idx);
> > > >+ return true;
> > > >+ }
> > > >+
> > > >+ if ((srgn_offset + cnt) > bitmap_len)
> > > >+ bit_len = bitmap_len - srgn_offset;
> > > >+ else
> > > >+ bit_len = cnt;
> > > >+
> > > >+ if (find_next_bit(srgn->mctx->ppn_dirty, bitmap_len,
> > > >+ srgn_offset) < bit_len + srgn_offset)
> > > >+ return true;
> > > >+
> > >
> > > It seems unnecessary to search through bitmap_len
> > > How about searching by transfer size?
> > >
> > > if (find_next_bit(srgn->mctx->ppn_dirty,
> > > bit_len + srgn_offset, srgn_offset) < bit_len + srgn_offset)
> > Isn't bit_len should be used for size, and not bit_len + srgn_offset ?
>
> then find_next_bit checks from start to bit_len.
> find_next_bit stops checking if start is greater than bit_len.
> it does not check for dirty as transfer_size.
Right. Size (nbits in _find_next_bit) practically means @end - Confusing...
Either way, Is this tad optimization worth another spin in your opinion?
Thanks,
Avri
>
> Thanks
> Yohan
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Avri
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Yohan
