From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751707AbdFHMb0 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 8 Jun 2017 08:31:26 -0400
Received: from mail-qt0-f196.google.com ([209.85.216.196]:34981 "EHLO
        mail-qt0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751444AbdFHMbY (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 8 Jun 2017 08:31:24 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170608025556.GB20010@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20170607142924.28552-1-willy@infradead.org> <20170607142924.28552-4-willy@infradead.org>
 <CAHp75VdzKn7Kg_vQodk-7Sqz0HjaHG-JxR_ce-rt8+cke7OerA@mail.gmail.com> <20170608025556.GB20010@bombadil.infradead.org>
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:31:23 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfQ7RwBm1SO83BxEU6oDj_zyKZ_yDvRGv8tbYn0e1xpxw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] bitmap: Use memcmp optimisation in more situations
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 04:48:04AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> > Commit 7dd968163f ("bitmap: bitmap_equal memcmp optimization") was
>> > rather more restrictive than necessary; we can use memcmp() to implement
>> > bitmap_equal() as long as the number of bits can be proved to be a
>> > multiple of 8.  And architectures other than s390 may be able to make
>> > good use of this optimisation.
>>
>> > -       if (__builtin_constant_p(nbits) && (nbits % BITS_PER_LONG) == 0)
>> > +       if (__builtin_constant_p(nbits & 7) && IS_ALIGNED(nbits, 8))
>> >                 return !memcmp(src1, src2, nbits / 8);
>>
>> I'm not sure this is a fully correct change.
>> What exactly ' & 7' part does?
>> For me looks like you may just drop it.
>
> We only need to know if the bottom 3 bits are 0 to apply this optimisation.
> For example, if we have a user which does this:
>
>         nbits = 8;
>         if (argle)
>                 nbits += 8;
>         if (bitmap_equal(ptr1, ptr2, nbits))
>                 blah();
>
> then we can use memcmp() because gcc can deduce that the bottom 3 bits
> are never set (try it!  it works!).  We don't need nbits as a whole to
> be const.

What I'm talking about is that by my opinion the both below are equivalent.
__builtin_constant_p(nbits)
__builtin_constant_p(nbits & 7)

Thus, again, what & 7 does there?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko