bitops: let optimize out non-atomic bitops on compile-time constants
Currently, many architecture-specific non-atomic bitop implementations use inline asm or other hacks which are faster or more robust when working with "real" variables (i.e. fields from the structures etc.), but the compilers have no clue how to optimize them out when called on compile-time constants. That said, the following code: DECLARE_BITMAP(foo, BITS_PER_LONG) = { }; // -> unsigned long foo[1]; unsigned long bar = BIT(BAR_BIT); unsigned long baz = 0; __set_bit(FOO_BIT, foo); baz |= BIT(BAZ_BIT); BUILD_BUG_ON(!__builtin_constant_p(test_bit(FOO_BIT, foo)); BUILD_BUG_ON(!__builtin_constant_p(bar & BAR_BIT)); BUILD_BUG_ON(!__builtin_constant_p(baz & BAZ_BIT)); triggers the first assertion on x86_64, which means that the compiler is unable to evaluate it to a compile-time initializer when the architecture-specific bitop is used even if it's obvious. In order to let the compiler optimize out such cases, expand the bitop() macro to use the "constant" C non-atomic bitop implementations when all of the arguments passed are compile-time constants, which means that the result will be a compile-time constant as well, so that it produces more efficient and simple code in 100% cases, comparing to the architecture-specific counterparts. The savings are architecture, compiler and compiler flags dependent, for example, on x86_64 -O2: GCC 12: add/remove: 78/29 grow/shrink: 332/525 up/down: 31325/-61560 (-30235) LLVM 13: add/remove: 79/76 grow/shrink: 184/537 up/down: 55076/-141892 (-86816) LLVM 14: add/remove: 10/3 grow/shrink: 93/138 up/down: 3705/-6992 (-3287) and ARM64 (courtesy of Mark): GCC 11: add/remove: 92/29 grow/shrink: 933/2766 up/down: 39340/-82580 (-43240) LLVM 14: add/remove: 21/11 grow/shrink: 620/651 up/down: 12060/-15824 (-3764) Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com> Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment