RE: [PATCH 1/2] rtlwifi: Fix improve function 'rtl_addr_delay()' in core.c
From: Larry Finger > Sent: 03 February 2016 19:45 ... > The performance will depend on where you satisfy the condition. All switch > cases > have the same execution time, but in the if .. else if .. else form, the > earlier > tests execute more quickly. I'm not sure that one can make any blanket > statement > about performance. Certainly, the switch version will be larger. For a switch > with 8 cases plus default, the object code if 43 bytes larger than the nested > ifs in a test program that I created. That is a significant penalty. There is also the penalty of the (likely) data cache miss reading the jump table. But given this code is all about generating a variable delay the execution speed is probably irrelevant. It would be much more interesting if the delay could be changed for sleeps. David
Re: [PATCH 1/2] rtlwifi: Fix improve function 'rtl_addr_delay()' in core.c
On 02/04/2016 03:48 AM, David Laight wrote: From: Larry Finger Sent: 03 February 2016 19:45 ... The performance will depend on where you satisfy the condition. All switch cases have the same execution time, but in the if .. else if .. else form, the earlier tests execute more quickly. I'm not sure that one can make any blanket statement about performance. Certainly, the switch version will be larger. For a switch with 8 cases plus default, the object code if 43 bytes larger than the nested ifs in a test program that I created. That is a significant penalty. There is also the penalty of the (likely) data cache miss reading the jump table. But given this code is all about generating a variable delay the execution speed is probably irrelevant. It would be much more interesting if the delay could be changed for sleeps. Unfortunately, sleeping is not possible for the routines that call rtl_addr_delay(). Larry
RE: [PATCH 1/2] rtlwifi: Fix improve function 'rtl_addr_delay()' in core.c
From: Larry Finger > Sent: 04 February 2016 15:44 > On 02/04/2016 03:48 AM, David Laight wrote: > > From: Larry Finger > >> Sent: 03 February 2016 19:45 > > ... > >> The performance will depend on where you satisfy the condition. All switch > >> cases > >> have the same execution time, but in the if .. else if .. else form, the > >> earlier > >> tests execute more quickly. I'm not sure that one can make any blanket > >> statement > >> about performance. Certainly, the switch version will be larger. For a > >> switch > >> with 8 cases plus default, the object code if 43 bytes larger than the > >> nested > >> ifs in a test program that I created. That is a significant penalty. > > > > There is also the penalty of the (likely) data cache miss reading the jump > > table. > > But given this code is all about generating a variable delay the execution > > speed is probably irrelevant. > > > > It would be much more interesting if the delay could be changed for sleeps. > > Unfortunately, sleeping is not possible for the routines that call > rtl_addr_delay(). I hope none of my systems ever busy-delay for 50ms. Actually possibly just as troublesome is udelay(1). I presume this is used after a 'hardware' write in order to meet a minimum pulse width (or an inter-cycle recovery time). Unfortunately the initial write cycle will almost certainly be 'posted' so may not actually be seen by the target until some time later. This means that although the cpu delayed 1us, the target hardware might see the second access back to back with the first one. Forcing the posted write to complete almost certainly involves reading back from exactly the same physical address (possibly after some sync instruction(s)). David
RE: [PATCH 1/2] rtlwifi: Fix improve function 'rtl_addr_delay()' in core.c
From: Byeoungwook Kim > Sent: 03 February 2016 02:00 > Conditional codes in rtl_addr_delay() were improved in readability and > performance by using switch codes. I'd like to see the performance data :-) > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/core.c > b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/core.c > index 4ae421e..05f432c 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/core.c > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/core.c > @@ -37,18 +37,26 @@ > > void rtl_addr_delay(u32 addr) > { > - if (addr == 0xfe) > + switch (addr) { > + case 0xfe: > mdelay(50); > - else if (addr == 0xfd) > + break; > + case 0xfd: > mdelay(5); > - else if (addr == 0xfc) > + break; > + case 0xfc: > mdelay(1); > - else if (addr == 0xfb) > + break; > + case 0xfb: > udelay(50); > - else if (addr == 0xfa) > + break; > + case 0xfa: > udelay(5); > - else if (addr == 0xf9) > + break; > + case 0xf9: > udelay(1); > + break; > + }; Straight 'performance' can't matter here, not with mdelay(50)! The most likely effect is from speeding up the 'don't delay' path and reducing the number of conditionals (and hence accuracy of) udelay(1). Reversing the if-chain might be better still. David
Re: [PATCH 1/2] rtlwifi: Fix improve function 'rtl_addr_delay()' in core.c
Hi David, 2016-02-03 23:41 GMT+09:00 David Laight: > From: Byeoungwook Kim >> Sent: 03 February 2016 02:00 >> Conditional codes in rtl_addr_delay() were improved in readability and >> performance by using switch codes. >> ... >> void rtl_addr_delay(u32 addr) >> { >> - if (addr == 0xfe) >> + switch (addr) { >> + case 0xfe: >> mdelay(50); >> - else if (addr == 0xfd) >> + break; >> + case 0xfd: >> mdelay(5); >> - else if (addr == 0xfc) >> + break; >> + case 0xfc: >> mdelay(1); >> - else if (addr == 0xfb) >> + break; >> + case 0xfb: >> udelay(50); >> - else if (addr == 0xfa) >> + break; >> + case 0xfa: >> udelay(5); >> - else if (addr == 0xf9) >> + break; >> + case 0xf9: >> udelay(1); >> + break; >> + }; > > Straight 'performance' can't matter here, not with mdelay(50)! > The most likely effect is from speeding up the 'don't delay' path > and reducing the number of conditionals (and hence accuracy of) udelay(1). > Reversing the if-chain might be better still. > I agree with your assists about "The most likely effect is from speeding up the 'don't delay' path and reducing the number of conditionals (and hence accuracy of) udelay(1).". I converted to assembly codes like next line from conditionals. --- if (addr == 0xf9) 00951445 cmpdword ptr [addr],0F9h 0095144C jnemain+35h (0951455h) a(); 0095144E calla (09510EBh) 00951453 jmpmain+83h (09514A3h) else if (addr == 0xfa) 00951455 cmpdword ptr [addr],0FAh 0095145C jnemain+45h (0951465h) a(); 0095145E calla (09510EBh) 00951463 jmpmain+83h (09514A3h) else if (addr == 0xfb) 00951465 cmpdword ptr [addr],0FBh 0095146C jnemain+55h (0951475h) a(); 0095146E calla (09510EBh) 00951473 jmpmain+83h (09514A3h) else if (addr == 0xfc) 00951475 cmpdword ptr [addr],0FCh 0095147C jnemain+65h (0951485h) b(); 0095147E callb (09510E6h) 00951483 jmpmain+83h (09514A3h) else if (addr == 0xfd) 00951485 cmpdword ptr [addr],0FDh 0095148C jnemain+75h (0951495h) b(); 0095148E callb (09510E6h) 00951493 jmpmain+83h (09514A3h) else if (addr == 0xfe) 00951495 cmpdword ptr [addr],0FEh 0095149C jnemain+83h (09514A3h) b(); 0095149E callb (09510E6h) --- if the addr value was 0xfe, Big-O-notation is O(1). but if the addr value was 0xf9, Big-O-notation is O(n). 2016-02-03 23:41 GMT+09:00 David Laight : > From: Byeoungwook Kim >> Sent: 03 February 2016 02:00 >> Conditional codes in rtl_addr_delay() were improved in readability and >> performance by using switch codes. > > I'd like to see the performance data :-) I used switch codes to solve of this problem. If the addr variable was increment consecutive, switch codes is able to use branch table for optimize. so I converted to assembly codes like next line from same codes about my patch. switch (addr) 011C1445 moveax,dword ptr [addr] 011C1448 movdword ptr [ebp-0D0h],eax 011C144E movecx,dword ptr [ebp-0D0h] 011C1454 subecx,0F9h 011C145A movdword ptr [ebp-0D0h],ecx 011C1460 cmpdword ptr [ebp-0D0h],5 011C1467 ja $LN6+28h (011C149Eh) 011C1469 movedx,dword ptr [ebp-0D0h] 011C146F jmpdword ptr [edx*4+11C14B4h] { case 0xf9: a(); break; 011C1476 calla (011C10EBh) 011C147B jmp$LN6+28h (011C149Eh) case 0xfa: a(); break; 011C147D calla (011C10EBh) 011C1482 jmp$LN6+28h (011C149Eh) case 0xfb: a(); break; 011C1484 calla (011C10EBh) 011C1489 jmp$LN6+28h (011C149Eh) case 0xfc: b(); break; 011C148B callb (011C10E6h) 011C1490 jmp$LN6+28h (011C149Eh) case 0xfd: b(); break; 011C1492 callb (011C10E6h) 011C1497 jmp$LN6+28h (011C149Eh) case 0xfe: b(); break; 011C1499 callb (011C10E6h) } ===[[branch table]]=== 011C14B4 011C1476h 011C14B8 011C147Dh 011C14BC 011C1484h 011C14C0 011C148Bh 011C14C4 011C1492h 011C14C8 011C1499h So conditional codes into rtl_addr_delay() can improve to readability and performance that used switch codes. Regards, Byeoungwook.
Re: [PATCH 1/2] rtlwifi: Fix improve function 'rtl_addr_delay()' in core.c
On 02/03/2016 11:49 AM, ByeoungWook Kim wrote: Hi David, 2016-02-03 23:41 GMT+09:00 David Laight: From: Byeoungwook Kim Sent: 03 February 2016 02:00 Conditional codes in rtl_addr_delay() were improved in readability and performance by using switch codes. ... void rtl_addr_delay(u32 addr) { - if (addr == 0xfe) + switch (addr) { + case 0xfe: mdelay(50); - else if (addr == 0xfd) + break; + case 0xfd: mdelay(5); - else if (addr == 0xfc) + break; + case 0xfc: mdelay(1); - else if (addr == 0xfb) + break; + case 0xfb: udelay(50); - else if (addr == 0xfa) + break; + case 0xfa: udelay(5); - else if (addr == 0xf9) + break; + case 0xf9: udelay(1); + break; + }; Straight 'performance' can't matter here, not with mdelay(50)! The most likely effect is from speeding up the 'don't delay' path and reducing the number of conditionals (and hence accuracy of) udelay(1). Reversing the if-chain might be better still. I agree with your assists about "The most likely effect is from speeding up the 'don't delay' path and reducing the number of conditionals (and hence accuracy of) udelay(1).". I converted to assembly codes like next line from conditionals. --- if (addr == 0xf9) 00951445 cmpdword ptr [addr],0F9h 0095144C jnemain+35h (0951455h) a(); 0095144E calla (09510EBh) 00951453 jmpmain+83h (09514A3h) else if (addr == 0xfa) 00951455 cmpdword ptr [addr],0FAh 0095145C jnemain+45h (0951465h) a(); 0095145E calla (09510EBh) 00951463 jmpmain+83h (09514A3h) else if (addr == 0xfb) 00951465 cmpdword ptr [addr],0FBh 0095146C jnemain+55h (0951475h) a(); 0095146E calla (09510EBh) 00951473 jmpmain+83h (09514A3h) else if (addr == 0xfc) 00951475 cmpdword ptr [addr],0FCh 0095147C jnemain+65h (0951485h) b(); 0095147E callb (09510E6h) 00951483 jmpmain+83h (09514A3h) else if (addr == 0xfd) 00951485 cmpdword ptr [addr],0FDh 0095148C jnemain+75h (0951495h) b(); 0095148E callb (09510E6h) 00951493 jmpmain+83h (09514A3h) else if (addr == 0xfe) 00951495 cmpdword ptr [addr],0FEh 0095149C jnemain+83h (09514A3h) b(); 0095149E callb (09510E6h) --- if the addr value was 0xfe, Big-O-notation is O(1). but if the addr value was 0xf9, Big-O-notation is O(n). 2016-02-03 23:41 GMT+09:00 David Laight : From: Byeoungwook Kim Sent: 03 February 2016 02:00 Conditional codes in rtl_addr_delay() were improved in readability and performance by using switch codes. I'd like to see the performance data :-) I used switch codes to solve of this problem. If the addr variable was increment consecutive, switch codes is able to use branch table for optimize. so I converted to assembly codes like next line from same codes about my patch. switch (addr) 011C1445 moveax,dword ptr [addr] 011C1448 movdword ptr [ebp-0D0h],eax 011C144E movecx,dword ptr [ebp-0D0h] 011C1454 subecx,0F9h 011C145A movdword ptr [ebp-0D0h],ecx 011C1460 cmpdword ptr [ebp-0D0h],5 011C1467 ja $LN6+28h (011C149Eh) 011C1469 movedx,dword ptr [ebp-0D0h] 011C146F jmpdword ptr [edx*4+11C14B4h] { case 0xf9: a(); break; 011C1476 calla (011C10EBh) 011C147B jmp$LN6+28h (011C149Eh) case 0xfa: a(); break; 011C147D calla (011C10EBh) 011C1482 jmp$LN6+28h (011C149Eh) case 0xfb: a(); break; 011C1484 calla (011C10EBh) 011C1489 jmp$LN6+28h (011C149Eh) case 0xfc: b(); break; 011C148B callb (011C10E6h) 011C1490 jmp$LN6+28h (011C149Eh) case 0xfd: b(); break; 011C1492 callb (011C10E6h) 011C1497 jmp$LN6+28h (011C149Eh) case 0xfe: b(); break; 011C1499 callb (011C10E6h) } ===[[branch table]]=== 011C14B4 011C1476h 011C14B8 011C147Dh 011C14BC 011C1484h 011C14C0 011C148Bh 011C14C4 011C1492h 011C14C8 011C1499h So conditional codes into rtl_addr_delay() can improve to readability and performance that used switch codes. My advice is that you relax. I was out of my office for a day and a half, and I return to find my inbox full of this topic. The discussion is OK, but submitting 3 versions of a patch before I (the maintainer) even have a chance to read the original submission. When resubmitting a new version of a multi-patch set, every member of that set should be resubmitted with the new version even though a particular member has not changed. This convention makes it easier for the maintainer to keep track of the changes. In addition, all patches are
Re: [PATCH 1/2] rtlwifi: Fix improve function 'rtl_addr_delay()' in core.c
Hi Byeounwook, On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Byeoungwook Kimwrote: > Conditional codes in rtl_addr_delay() were improved in readability and > performance by using switch codes. > > Signed-off-by: Byeoungwook Kim > Reported-by: Julian Calaby Reviewed-by: Julian Calaby Thanks, Julian Calaby > --- > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/core.c | 20 ++-- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/core.c > b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/core.c > index 4ae421e..05f432c 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/core.c > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/core.c > @@ -37,18 +37,26 @@ > > void rtl_addr_delay(u32 addr) > { > - if (addr == 0xfe) > + switch (addr) { > + case 0xfe: > mdelay(50); > - else if (addr == 0xfd) > + break; > + case 0xfd: > mdelay(5); > - else if (addr == 0xfc) > + break; > + case 0xfc: > mdelay(1); > - else if (addr == 0xfb) > + break; > + case 0xfb: > udelay(50); > - else if (addr == 0xfa) > + break; > + case 0xfa: > udelay(5); > - else if (addr == 0xf9) > + break; > + case 0xf9: > udelay(1); > + break; > + }; > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(rtl_addr_delay); > > -- > 2.5.0 > -- Julian Calaby Email: julian.cal...@gmail.com Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/