Re: [PATCH v18 05/10] xbitmap: add more operations

From: Wei Wang
Date: Fri Dec 01 2017 - 03:00:42 EST


On 11/30/2017 06:34 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
Wei Wang wrote:
+ * @start: the start of the bit range, inclusive
+ * @end: the end of the bit range, inclusive
+ *
+ * This function is used to clear a bit in the xbitmap. If all the bits of the
+ * bitmap are 0, the bitmap will be freed.
+ */
+void xb_clear_bit_range(struct xb *xb, unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
+{
+ struct radix_tree_root *root = &xb->xbrt;
+ struct radix_tree_node *node;
+ void **slot;
+ struct ida_bitmap *bitmap;
+ unsigned int nbits;
+
+ for (; start < end; start = (start | (IDA_BITMAP_BITS - 1)) + 1) {
+ unsigned long index = start / IDA_BITMAP_BITS;
+ unsigned long bit = start % IDA_BITMAP_BITS;
+
+ bitmap = __radix_tree_lookup(root, index, &node, &slot);
+ if (radix_tree_exception(bitmap)) {
+ unsigned long ebit = bit + 2;
+ unsigned long tmp = (unsigned long)bitmap;
+
+ nbits = min(end - start + 1, BITS_PER_LONG - ebit);
"nbits = min(end - start + 1," seems to expect that start == end is legal
for clearing only 1 bit. But this function is no-op if start == end.
Please clarify what "inclusive" intended.

If xb_clear_bit_range(xb,10,10), then it is effectively the same as xb_clear_bit(10). Why would it be illegal?

"@start inclusive" means that the @start will also be included to be cleared.


+static inline __always_inline void bitmap_clear(unsigned long *map,
+ unsigned int start,
+ unsigned int nbits)
+{
+ if (__builtin_constant_p(nbits) && nbits == 1)
+ __clear_bit(start, map);
+ else if (__builtin_constant_p(start & 7) && IS_ALIGNED(start, 8) &&
+ __builtin_constant_p(nbits & 7) && IS_ALIGNED(nbits, 8))
It looks strange to apply __builtin_constant_p test to variables after "& 7".


I think this is normal - if the variables are known at compile time, the calculation will be done at compile time (termed constant folding).


Best,
Wei