Re: [PATCH v19 3/7] xbitmap: add more operations

[Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>]

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:33:00AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > My only qualm is that I've been considering optimising the memory
> > consumption when an entire 1024-bit chunk is full; instead of keeping a
> > pointer to a 128-byte entry full of ones, store a special value in the
> > radix tree which means "every bit is set".
> > 
> > The downside is that we then have to pass GFP flags to xbit_clear() and
> > xbit_zero(), and they can fail.  It's not clear to me whether that's a
> > good tradeoff.
> 
> Yes, this will sacrifice performance. In many usages, users may set bits one
> by one, and each time when a bit is set, it needs to scan the whole
> ida_bitmap to see if all other bits are set, if so, it can free the
> ida_bitmap. I think this extra scanning of the ida_bitmap would add a lot
> overhead.

Not a huge amount of overhead.  An ida_bitmap is only two cachelines,
and the loop is simply 'check each word against ~0ul', so up to 16
load/test/loop instructions.  Plus we have to do that anyway to maintain
the free tag for IDAs.

> > But I need to get the XArray (which replaces the radix tree) finished first.
> 
> OK. It seems the new implementation wouldn't be done shortly.
> Other parts of this patch series are close to the end of review, and we hope
> to make some progress soon. Would it be acceptable that we continue with the
> basic xb_ implementation (e.g. as xbitmap 1.0) for this patch series? and
> xbit_ implementation can come as xbitmap 2.0 in the future?

Yes, absolutely, I don't want to hold you up behind the XArray.