Costa Shulyupin <costa.s...@redhat.com> writes:
> Replace `cpumask_any_and(a, b) >= nr_cpu_ids`
> with the more readable `!cpumask_intersects(a, b)`.
>
> Comparison between cpumask_any_and() and cpumask_intersects()
>
> The cpumask_any_and() function expands using FIND_FIRST_BIT(),
> resulting in a loop that iterates through each bit of the bitmask:
>
> for (idx = 0; idx * BITS_PER_LONG < sz; idx++) {
> val = (FETCH);
> if (val) {
> sz = min(idx * BITS_PER_LONG + __ffs(MUNGE(val)), sz);
> break;
> }
> }
>
> The cpumask_intersects() function expands using __bitmap_intersects(),
> resulting in that the first loop iterates through each long word of the
> bitmask,
> and the second through each bit within a long word:
>
> unsigned int k, lim = bits/BITS_PER_LONG;
> for (k = 0; k < lim; ++k)
> if (bitmap1[k] & bitmap2[k])
> return true;
>
> if (bits % BITS_PER_LONG)
> if ((bitmap1[k] & bitmap2[k]) & BITMAP_LAST_WORD_MASK(bits))
> return true;
>
> Conclusion: cpumask_intersects() is at least as efficient as
> cpumask_any_and(),
> if not more so, as it typically performs fewer loops and comparisons.
>
I agree with the analysis in above. cpumask_any_and() has to get the
first set bit from the two cpumask for which it also does some
additional calculations like __ffs().
whereas cpumask_intersects() has to only check if any of the bits is set
hence does fewer operations.
Looks good to me. Please feel free to add -
Reviewed-by: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.harj...@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Costa Shulyupin <costa.s...@redhat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ming Lei <ming....@redhat.com>
>
> ---
>
> v2: add comparison between cpumask_any_and() and cpumask_intersects()
>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/sysdev/xive/common.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/xive/common.c
> b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/xive/common.c
> index fa01818c1972c..a6c388bdf5d08 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/xive/common.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/xive/common.c
> @@ -726,7 +726,7 @@ static int xive_irq_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d,
> pr_debug("%s: irq %d/0x%x\n", __func__, d->irq, hw_irq);
>
> /* Is this valid ? */
> - if (cpumask_any_and(cpumask, cpu_online_mask) >= nr_cpu_ids)
> + if (!cpumask_intersects(cpumask, cpu_online_mask))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> /*
> --
> 2.45.0
