On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 01:43:41PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 11:17:17PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > We need to iterate ctx starting from any ctx in round robin
> > way, so introduce this helper.
> >
> > Cc: Omar Sandoval <osan...@fb.com>
>
> A couple of comments below, once you address those you can add
>
> Reviewed-by: Omar Sandoval <osan...@fb.com>
>
> > Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming....@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/sbitmap.h | 54
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/sbitmap.h b/include/linux/sbitmap.h
> > index a1904aadbc45..2329b9e1a0e2 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/sbitmap.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sbitmap.h
> > @@ -211,10 +211,14 @@ bool sbitmap_any_bit_set(const struct sbitmap *sb);
> > */
> > bool sbitmap_any_bit_clear(const struct sbitmap *sb);
> >
> > +#define SB_NR_TO_INDEX(sb, bitnr) ((bitnr) >> (sb)->shift)
> > +#define SB_NR_TO_BIT(sb, bitnr) ((bitnr) & ((1U << (sb)->shift) - 1U))
> > +
> > typedef bool (*sb_for_each_fn)(struct sbitmap *, unsigned int, void *);
> >
> > /**
> > * sbitmap_for_each_set() - Iterate over each set bit in a &struct sbitmap.
> > + * @off: Where to start the iteration
> > * @sb: Bitmap to iterate over.
> > * @fn: Callback. Should return true to continue or false to break early.
> > * @data: Pointer to pass to callback.
> > @@ -222,35 +226,57 @@ typedef bool (*sb_for_each_fn)(struct sbitmap *,
> > unsigned int, void *);
> > * This is inline even though it's non-trivial so that the function calls
> > to the
> > * callback will hopefully get optimized away.
> > */
> > -static inline void sbitmap_for_each_set(struct sbitmap *sb, sb_for_each_fn
> > fn,
> > - void *data)
> > +static inline void __sbitmap_for_each_set(struct sbitmap *sb,
> > + unsigned int off,
> > + sb_for_each_fn fn, void *data)
> > {
> > - unsigned int i;
> > + unsigned int index = SB_NR_TO_INDEX(sb, off);
> > + unsigned int nr = SB_NR_TO_BIT(sb, off);
> > + unsigned int scanned = 0;
> >
> > - for (i = 0; i < sb->map_nr; i++) {
> > - struct sbitmap_word *word = &sb->map[i];
> > - unsigned int off, nr;
> > + while (1) {
> > + struct sbitmap_word *word = &sb->map[index];
> > + unsigned int depth = min_t(unsigned int, word->depth - nr,
> > + sb->depth - scanned);
> >
> > + scanned += depth;
> > if (!word->word)
> > - continue;
> > + goto next;
> >
> > - nr = 0;
> > - off = i << sb->shift;
> > + depth += nr;
>
> I had to think hard to convince myself this was right. If above we set
> depth to (sb->depth - scanned), then we must have already looped at
It should be so only in the last loop, in which the 1st half of
the word is to be checked because we start from the 2nd half of
the same word.
> least once, so nr must be 0, therefore this is okay. Am I following this
> correctly? I think reassigning like so would be more clear:
Yes, you are right, nr can be non-zero only in the 1st loop.
>
> depth = min_t(unsigned int, word->depth, sb->depth - scanned);
If nr isn't zero, the depth to be scanned should be 'word->depth - nr'
in the 1st loop, so the above way can't cover this case.
>
> > + off = index << sb->shift;
> > while (1) {
> > - nr = find_next_bit(&word->word, word->depth, nr);
> > - if (nr >= word->depth)
> > + nr = find_next_bit(&word->word, depth, nr);
> > + if (nr >= depth)
> > break;
> > -
> > if (!fn(sb, off + nr, data))
> > return;
> >
> > nr++;
> > }
> > + next:
> > + if (scanned >= sb->depth)
> > + break;
> > + nr = 0;
> > + if (++index >= sb->map_nr)
> > + index = 0;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > -#define SB_NR_TO_INDEX(sb, bitnr) ((bitnr) >> (sb)->shift)
> > -#define SB_NR_TO_BIT(sb, bitnr) ((bitnr) & ((1U << (sb)->shift) - 1U))
> > +/**
> > + * sbitmap_for_each_set() - Iterate over each set bit in a &struct sbitmap.
> > + * @sb: Bitmap to iterate over.
> > + * @fn: Callback. Should return true to continue or false to break early.
> > + * @data: Pointer to pass to callback.
>
>
> > + *
> > + * This is inline even though it's non-trivial so that the function calls
> > to the
> > + * callback will hopefully get optimized away.
>
> This part of the comment doesn't make sense for this wrapper, please
> remove it.
OK.
--
Ming
