Re: [PATCH v5] lib: optimize cpumask_next_and()

2017-11-29 Thread Yury Norov
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:35:55AM +0100, Clement Courbet wrote: > > > Note that on Arm (), the new c implementation still outperforms the > > > old one that uses c+ the asm implementation of `find_next_bit` [3]. > > What is 'c+'? Is it typo? > > I meant "a mix of C and asm" ~(C + asm). Rephrased.

Re: [PATCH v5] lib: optimize cpumask_next_and()

2017-11-28 Thread Yury Norov
NACK. I'm sorry, but it seems you have to send v6. See comments inline. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 02:13:34PM +0100, Clement Courbet wrote: > We've measured that we spend ~0.6% of sys cpu time in cpumask_next_and(). > It's essentially a joined iteration in search for a non-zero bit, which > is curr