On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 03:32:48PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 07:18:08PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:36 AM Kent Gibson <warthog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Add support for the GPIO_V2_LINE_SET_VALUES_IOCTL.
> >
> > > +static long linereq_set_values_unlocked(struct linereq *lr,
> > > + struct gpio_v2_line_values *lv)
> > > +{
> > > + DECLARE_BITMAP(vals, GPIO_V2_LINES_MAX);
> > > + struct gpio_desc **descs;
> > > + unsigned int i, didx, num_set;
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + bitmap_zero(vals, GPIO_V2_LINES_MAX);
> > > + for (num_set = 0, i = 0; i < lr->num_lines; i++) {
> > > + if (lv->mask & BIT_ULL(i)) {
> >
> > Similar idea
> >
> > DECLARE_BITMAP(mask, 64) = BITMAP_FROM_U64(lv->mask);
> >
> > num_set = bitmap_weight();
> >
>
> I had played with this option, but bitmap_weight() counts all
> the bits set in the mask - which considers bits >= lr->num_lines.
> So you would need to mask lv->mask before converting it to a bitmap.
> (I'm ok with ignoring those bits in case userspace wants to be lazy and
> use an all 1s mask.)
>
> But since we're looping over the bitmap anyway we may as well just
> count as we go.
>
> > for_each_set_bit(i, mask, lr->num_lines)
> >
>
> Yeah, that should work. I vaguely recall trying this and finding it
> generated larger object code, but I'll give it another try and if it
> works out then include it in v10.
>
Tried it again and, while it works, it does increase the size of
gpiolib-cdev.o as follows:
u64 -> bitmap
x86_64 28360 28616
i386 22056 22100
aarch64 37392 37600
mips32 28008 28016
So for 64-bit platforms changing to bitmap generates larger code,
probably as we are forcing them to use 32-bit array semantics where
before they could use the native u64. For 32-bit there is a much
smaller difference as they were already using 32-bit array semantics
to realise the u64.
Those are for some of my test builds, so obviously YMMV.
It is also only for changing linereq_get_values(), which has three
instances of the loop. linereq_set_values_unlocked() has another two,
so you could expect another increase of ~2/3 of that seen here if we
change that as well.
The sizeable increase in x86_64 was what made me revert this last time,
and I'm still satisfied with that choice. Are you still eager to switch
to for_each_set_bit()?
Cheers,
Kent.
