On 26/08/2024 12:40 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 23.08.2024 01:06, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> --- a/xen/include/xen/bitops.h
> +++ b/xen/include/xen/bitops.h
> @@ -35,6 +35,12 @@ extern void __bitop_bad_size(void);
> unsigned int __pure generic_ffsl(unsigned long x);
> unsigned int __pure generic_flsl(unsigned long x);
>
>> +/*
>> + * Hamming Weight, also called Population Count. Returns the number of set
>> + * bits in @x.
>> + */
>> +unsigned int __pure generic_hweightl(unsigned long x);
> Aren't this and ...
>
>> @@ -284,6 +290,18 @@ static always_inline __pure unsigned int fls64(uint64_t
>> x)
>> (_v & (_v - 1)) != 0; \
>> })
>>
>> +static always_inline __pure unsigned int hweightl(unsigned long x)
> ... this even __attribute_const__?
Hmm. This is following fls(), but on further consideration, they should
be const too.
I'll do a prep patch fixing that, although I'm going to rename it to
__attr_const for brevity.
Much as I'd prefer __const, I expect that is going too far, making it
too close to regular const.
>
>> +{
>> + if ( __builtin_constant_p(x) )
>> + return __builtin_popcountl(x);
> How certain are you that compilers (even old ones) will reliably fold
> constant expressions here, and never emit a libgcc call instead? The
> conditions look to be more tight than just __builtin_constant_p(); a
> pretty absurd example:
>
> unsigned ltest(void) {
> return __builtin_constant_p("") ? __builtin_popcountl((unsigned long)"")
> : ~0;
> }
How do you express that in terms of a call to hweightl()?
Again, this is following the layout started with fls() in order to avoid
each arch opencoding different versions of constant folding.
https://godbolt.org/z/r544c49oY
When it's forced through the hweightl() interface, even GCC 4.1 decides
that it's non-constant and falls back to generic_hweightl().
I did spend a *lot* of time with the fls() series checking that all
compilers we supported did what we wanted in this case, so I don't
expect it to be a problem. But, if a library call is emitted, it will
be very obvious (link failure), and we can re-evaluate.
>
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/xen/lib/generic-hweightl.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
>> +
>> +#include <xen/bitops.h>
>> +#include <xen/init.h>
>> +#include <xen/self-tests.h>
>> +
>> +/* Mask value @b broadcast to every byte in a long */
>> +#if BITS_PER_LONG == 32
>> +# define MASK(b) ((b) * 0x01010101UL)
>> +#elif BITS_PER_LONG == 64
>> +# define MASK(b) ((b) * 0x0101010101010101UL)
>> +#else
>> +# error Extend me please
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +unsigned int generic_hweightl(unsigned long x)
>> +{
>> + x -= (x >> 1) & MASK(0x55);
>> + x = (x & MASK(0x33)) + ((x >> 2) & MASK(0x33));
>> + x = (x + (x >> 4)) & MASK(0x0f);
>> +
>> + if ( IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAS_FAST_MULTIPLY) )
>> + return (x * MASK(0x01)) >> (BITS_PER_LONG - 8);
> I realize it's nitpicking, yet especially this use isn't really "mask"-
> like. Could I talk you into naming the macro e.g. BCST()?
Ok - I wasn't overly happy with the name MASK(), and BCST() is better.
>
>> + x += x >> 8;
>> + x += x >> 16;
>> +#if BITS_PER_LONG > 32
>> + x += x >> 32;
>> +#endif
>> +
>> + return x & 0xff;
>> +}
> Perhaps #undef MASK here, or else ...
>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SELF_TESTS
>> +static void __init __constructor test_generic_hweightl(void)
>> +{
>> + RUNTIME_CHECK(generic_hweightl, 0, 0);
>> + RUNTIME_CHECK(generic_hweightl, 1, 1);
>> + RUNTIME_CHECK(generic_hweightl, 3, 2);
>> + RUNTIME_CHECK(generic_hweightl, 7, 3);
>> + RUNTIME_CHECK(generic_hweightl, 0xff, 8);
>> +
>> + RUNTIME_CHECK(generic_hweightl, 1 | (1UL << (BITS_PER_LONG - 1)), 2);
>> + RUNTIME_CHECK(generic_hweightl, -1UL, BITS_PER_LONG);
>> +}
> ... actually use it some here, to have a few more cases?
Hmm, why not.
~Andrew
