Re: [PATCH] block: optimise bvec_iter_advance()

[Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>]

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 01:47:16AM +0300, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 30/11/2019 01:17, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > 
> > The loop can be simplified a bit further, as done has to be 0 once we go
> > beyond the current bio_vec. See below for the simplified version.
> > 
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion! I thought about it, and decided to not
> for several reasons. I prefer to not fine-tune and give compilers
> more opportunity to do their job. And it's already fast enough with
> modern architectures (MOVcc, complex addressing, etc).
> 
> Also need to consider code clarity and the fact, that this is inline,
> so should be brief and register-friendly.
> 

It should be more register-friendly, as it uses fewer variables, and I
think it's easier to see what the loop is doing, i.e. that we advance
one bio_vec per iteration: in the existing code, it takes a bit of
thinking to see that we won't spend more than one iteration within the
same bio_vec.

I don't see this as fine-tuning, rather simplifying the code. I do agree
that it's not going to make much difference for performance of the loop
itself, as the most common case I think is that we either stay in the
current bio_vec or advance by one.

> 
> > I also check if bi_size became zero so we can skip the rest of the
> > calculations in that case. If we want to preserve the current behavior of
> > updating iter->bi_idx and iter->bi_bvec_done even if bi_size is going to
> > become zero, the loop condition should change to
> > 
> > 		while (bytes && bytes >= cur->bv_len)
> 
> Probably, it's better to leave it in a consistent state. Shouldn't be
> a problem, but never know when and who will screw it up. 
> 

The WARN_ONCE case does leave it inconsistent, though that's not
supposed to happen, so less of a pitfall there.