Messages in this thread | | | From | "Jason A. Donenfeld" <> | Date | Fri, 23 Sep 2022 17:11:43 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] minmax: clamp more efficiently by avoiding extra comparison |
| |
Hi Andy,
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 5:11 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 12:36 PM Andy Shevchenko > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 12:06:21PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > > > Currently the clamp algorithm does: > > > > > > > > if (val > hi) > > > > val = hi; > > > > if (val < lo) > > > > val = lo; > > > > > > > > But since hi > lo by definition, this can be made more efficient with: > > > > > > It's strongly speaking, but we have to proof that, right? > > > So, while I haven't checked the code, this change should also > > > include (does it?) the corresponding compile-time checks (for > > > constant arguments) in similar way how it's done for GENMASK(). > > > > > > Otherwise I have no objections. > > > > I think most cases are with compile time constants, but some cases are > > with variables. What should we do in that case? Checking variables at > > runtime incurs the same cost as the old code. I guess we could do this > > fast thing for constants and the slower old thing for non-constants? > > Or not do either, keep this commit as is, and just accept that if you > > pass bogus bounds to clamp, you're going to end up with something > > weird, which is already the case now so not a big deal? > > I'm talking only for the cases where we _can_ check. For variables it's > probably tricky to do at compile time if possible at all.
Okay, sure, I'll add a check in the case where we can check.
Jason
| |