Re: [patch 05/24] perfmon: X86 generic code (x86)

[stephane eranian]

Thomas,

On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 12:16 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, stephane eranian wrote:
>> > What a nonsense. We have a bitmask already. Why not iterate over the
>> > bitmask and be done ?
>> >
>>
>> Bitmask can be sparsed. Num represents the number of bits we have to find.
>> The idea is that we don't need to scan the entire bitmask, we stop as soon as
>> we have found all the bits we care about (i.e., all the bits that are set).
>>
>> Example:
>>          num = 3
>>      bitmask=0000000010001001
>>                                     ^ we will iterate until we are
>> done with that bit.
>
> Errm.
>
> #define for_each_bit(bit, addr, size) \
>        for ((bit) = find_first_bit((addr), (size)); \
>             (bit) < (size); \
>             (bit) = find_next_bit((addr), (size), (bit) + 1))
>
> find_first_bit() and find_next_bit() are single instructions on most
> architectures. "size" is known upfront at setup time of the
> context/set and can be cached.
>
> This takes exactly 3 iterations, while your method needs 8. And it
> gets worse with the following example:
>
> Example:
>  num = 1
>  bitmask=1000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 00000
>
>          ^ you will iterate until we are done with that bit (32 times)
>
>  for_each_bit() will iterate exactly _once_.
>
Ok, you've convinced me. I will make the change.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/