Re: [PATCH] micro-opt DEBUG_ADD_PAGE

From: Hugh Dickins (
Date: Thu Feb 08 2001 - 11:24:23 EST

On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > None of those optimizes this: I believe the semantics of "||" (don't
> > try next test if first succeeds) forbid the optimization "|" gives?
> No. The optimization is entirely legal - but the fact that
> "constant_test_bit()" uses a "volatile unsigned int *" is the reason why
> gcc thinks it can't optimize it.

Ah, yes, I hadn't noticed that, the "volatile" is indeed why it ends up
with three "mov"s. But take the "volatile"s out of constant_test_bit(),
and DEBUG_ADD_PAGE still expands to three tests and three (four if 2.97)
jumps - which is what originally offended me.

But Mark (in test program in private mail) shows gcc combining bits
into one test and one jump, just as we'd hope (and I wrongly thought
forbidden). Perhaps the inline function nature of constant_test_bit()
(which Mark didn't use) gets in the way of combining those tests.

> You could try to remove the volatile from test_bit, and see if that fixes
> it - but then we'd have to find and add the proper "rmb()" calls to people
> who do the endless loop kind of thing like above.

That is not an inviting path to me, at least not any time soon!

I think this all argues for the little patch I suggested - just avoid
test_bit() here. But it was only intended as a quick little suggestion:
looks like our tastes differ, and you prefer taking the _tiny_ hit of
using the regular macros, to seeing "1<<PG_bitshift"s in DEBUG_ADD_PAGE.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 15 2001 - 21:00:11 EST