lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] Bitmap patches for v5.19-rc1
On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 09:17:21PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 8:44 AM Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > bitmap: add bitmap_weight_{cmp, eq, gt, ge, lt, le} functions
>
> So honestly, I pulled this, looked at the code, and then unpulled it again.
>
> This is not helping.
>
> Making changes like this:
>
> - if (mm != current->active_mm || cpumask_weight(mm_cpumask(mm)) != 1) {
> + if (mm != current->active_mm || !cpumask_weight_eq(mm_cpumask(mm), 1)) {
>
> only makes the code harder to understand.
>
> And it gets worse:
>
> - if (cpumask_weight(mask) > cpumask_weight(sibling_mask(cpu)))
> + if (cpumask_weight_gt(mask, cpumask_weight(sibling_mask(cpu))))
>
> is just disgusting. That original line is simple to read and makes
> sense. That new replacement really makes you do "Whaa?"
>
> Now, I understand that these kinds of helper functions could make for
> slightly more efficient code in that you can break out of the bitmap
> scanning early when you have found enough bits set. I get it.
>
> BUT.
>
> (a) code legibility is really really important
>
> (b) the places I found this weren't that performance-critical.
>
> (c) in most cases, the bitmaps in question are one single word
>
> so I'm unpulling this again.
>
> Now, some other parts of the pull were clear improvements. For
> example, the hyperv changes like this:
>
> - if (hc->var_cnt != bitmap_weight((unsigned long
> *)&valid_bank_mask, 64))
> + if (hc->var_cnt != hweight64(valid_bank_mask))
>
> were clear improvements where the old code was disgusting, and clearly
> improved by the change.
>
> But the "bitmap_weight_cmp()" functions (and the cpumask_weight_cmp()
> ones) are just not a direction we want to go.
>
> The special case of zero (ie "cpumask_weight() == 0" ->
> "bitmap_empty()") is one thing: making that kind of change tends to
> keep the code legible or even make it more understandable. So I didn't
> mind that. But I do mind the pointlessly complex new arbitrary weight
> comparisons, and the kind of mental cost they have.
>
> There are people in the CS world that think "abstractions are always
> good". Those people are very very wrong.

Ok, I'll send a new pull with all but bitmap_weight_cmp() patches.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-01 03:16    [W:0.054 / U:0.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site