Re: [PATCH 1/5] clump_bits: Introduce the for_each_set_clump macro
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Date: 2020-12-27 22:04:20
Also in:
linux-arch, linux-gpio, linux-pm, lkml
On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 7:42 AM Syed Nayyar Waris [off-list ref] wrote:
This macro iterates for each group of bits (clump) with set bits, within a bitmap memory region. For each iteration, "start" is set to the bit offset of the found clump, while the respective clump value is stored to the location pointed by "clump". Additionally, the bitmap_get_value() and bitmap_set_value() functions are introduced to respectively get and set a value of n-bits in a bitmap memory region. The n-bits can have any size from 1 to BITS_PER_LONG. size less than 1 or more than BITS_PER_LONG causes undefined behaviour. Moreover, during setting value of n-bit in bitmap, if a situation arise that the width of next n-bit is exceeding the word boundary, then it will divide itself such that some portion of it is stored in that word, while the remaining portion is stored in the next higher word. Similar situation occurs while retrieving the value from bitmap. GCC gives warning in bitmap_set_value(): https://godbolt.org/z/rjx34r Add explicit check to see if the value being written into the bitmap does not fall outside the bitmap. The situation that it is falling outside would never be possible in the code because the boundaries are required to be correct before the function is called. The responsibility is on the caller for ensuring the boundaries are correct. The code change is simply to silence the GCC warning messages because GCC is not aware that the boundaries have already been checked. As such, we're better off using __builtin_unreachable() here because we can avoid the latency of the conditional check entirely.
Didn't the __builtin_unreachable() end up leading to an objtool
warning about incorrect stack frames for the code path that leads
into the undefined behavior? I thought I saw a message from the 0day
build bot about that and didn't expect to see it again after that.
Can you actually measure any performance difference compared
to BUG_ON() that avoids the undefined behavior? Practically
all CPUs from the past 20 years have branch predictors that should
completely hide measurable overhead from this.
Arnd
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel