From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5E871F5 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 20:07:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from hmsreliant.think-freely.org ([2001:470:8:a08:7aac:c0ff:fec2:933b] helo=localhost) by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Y1gPz-0007km-6r; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:07:26 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:07:22 -0500 From: Neil Horman To: Ravi Kerur Message-ID: <20141218190722.GC18008@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <20141213103921.GA1162@localhost.localdomain> <20141216213420.GE13806@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-Spam-Status: No Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] Minor fixes in rte_common.h file. X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 19:07:28 -0000 On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 08:40:17AM -0800, Ravi Kerur wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Neil Horman wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 08:46:51AM -0800, Ravi Kerur wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 2:39 AM, Neil Horman > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 03:04:34PM -0800, r k wrote: > > > > > Subject: [PATCH] Minor fixes in rte_common.h file. > > > > > > > > > > Fix rte_is_power_of_2 since 0 is not. > > > > > Avoid branching instructions in RTE_MAX and RTE_MIN. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ravi Kerur > > > > > --- > > > > > lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_common.h | 6 +++--- > > > > > lib/librte_pmd_e1000/igb_pf.c | 4 ++-- > > > > > lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_pf.c | 4 ++-- > > > > > 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_common.h > > > > > b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_common.h > > > > > index 921b91f..e163f35 100644 > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_common.h > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_common.h > > > > > @@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ extern int RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON_detected_error; > > static > > > > > inline int rte_is_power_of_2(uint32_t n) { > > > > > - return ((n-1) & n) == 0; > > > > > + return n && !(n & (n - 1)); > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > /** > > > > > @@ -259,7 +259,7 @@ rte_align64pow2(uint64_t v) #define RTE_MIN(a, > > b) > > > > ({ \ > > > > > typeof (a) _a = (a); \ > > > > > typeof (b) _b = (b); \ > > > > > - _a < _b ? _a : _b; \ > > > > > + _b ^ ((_a ^ _b) & -(_a < _b)); \ > > > > Are you sure this is actually faster than the branch version? What > > about > > > > using > > > > a cmov instead? > > > > > > > > > > > i am pretty sure modified code is faster than branching. I remember > > > cmov had performance issues esp. on Pentuim-4 not sure how new intel > > cpu's > > > perform. > > > > > Pretty sure isn't sure. Theres no point in code churn if theres no obvious > > advantage. Some perf tests to deomonstrate the advantage here would be > > great. > > > > I have used this before with the intent to avoid branching and it was > part of other changes I did for performance improvement in our code. > Then it should be pretty easy to provide the perf data demonstrating the advantage in this code. > > > > > > }) > > > > > > > > > > /** > > > > > @@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ rte_align64pow2(uint64_t v) #define RTE_MAX(a, > > b) > > > > ({ \ > > > > > typeof (a) _a = (a); \ > > > > > typeof (b) _b = (b); \ > > > > > - _a > _b ? _a : _b; \ > > > > > + _a ^ ((_a ^ _b) & -(_a < _b)); \ > > > > Same as above > > > > > > > > Same as above. > > > > > > > > }) > > > > > > > > > > /*********** Other general functions / macros ********/ diff --git > > > > > a/lib/librte_pmd_e1000/igb_pf.c b/lib/librte_pmd_e1000/igb_pf.c index > > > > > bc3816a..546499c 100644 > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_pmd_e1000/igb_pf.c > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_pmd_e1000/igb_pf.c > > > > > @@ -321,11 +321,11 @@ igb_vf_set_mac_addr(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, > > > > uint32_t > > > > > vf, uint32_t *msgbuf) static int igb_vf_set_multicast(struct > > > > rte_eth_dev > > > > > *dev, __rte_unused uint32_t vf, uint32_t *msgbuf) { > > > > > - int i; > > > > > + int16_t i; > > > > > uint32_t vector_bit; > > > > > uint32_t vector_reg; > > > > > uint32_t mta_reg; > > > > > - int entries = (msgbuf[0] & E1000_VT_MSGINFO_MASK) >> > > > > > + int32_t entries = (msgbuf[0] & E1000_VT_MSGINFO_MASK) >> > > > > > E1000_VT_MSGINFO_SHIFT; > > > > NAK, this has nothing to do with the included changelog > > > > > > > > > > It does, it causes compilation errors such as > > > > > > /root/dpdk-new/dpdk/lib/librte_pmd_e1000/igb_pf.c: In function > > > \u2018igb_pf_mbx_process\u2019: > > > /root/dpdk-new/dpdk/lib/librte_pmd_e1000/igb_pf.c:350:23: error: array > > > subscript is above array bounds [-Werror=array-bounds] > > > vfinfo->vf_mc_hashes[i] = hash_list[i]; > > > ^ > > > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > > > > > > Also it is always better to use explicit int definitions esp. for 64bit > > > systems. > > > > > > > This is your changelog: > > ============================================================= > > Subject: [PATCH] Minor fixes in rte_common.h file. > > > > Fix rte_is_power_of_2 since 0 is not. > > Avoid branching instructions in RTE_MAX and RTE_MIN > > ============================================================= > > > > Nowhere does your changelog indicate that you are fixing compliation > > errors. > > That would in and of itself be far more serious that making micro > > optimizations. > > If you want to fix build breaks, great, please do, but send a patch that > > clearly > > indicates what the break is and how your fixing it. Don't just toss it in > > with > > whatever other work you happen to be doing. > > > > Main reason was to replace int with explicit sized int, it happened to > fix compiler errors as well. I will make sure comments cover everything > next time. Anyways I will drop this patch and just include fix for > power_of_2. Please separate the compiler warning fixes from the performance enhancing fixes. They shouldn't be mashed together. Neil