lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] x86/efi: print size and base in binary units in efi_print_memmap
From
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory)
<elliott@hpe.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Matt Fleming [mailto:matt@codeblueprint.co.uk]
>> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 6:19 AM
>> To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory) <elliott@hpe.com>; Thomas Gleixner
>> <tglx@linutronix.de>; Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>; H. Peter Anvin
>> <hpa@zytor.com>; x86@kernel.org; linux-efi@vger.kernel.org; linux-
>> kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86/efi: print size and base in binary units in
>> efi_print_memmap
>>
>> On Sun, 27 Dec, at 04:35:12PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>> > >> diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c
>> b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c
>> > >> index 635a955..030ba91 100644
>> > >> --- a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c
>> > >> +++ b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c
>> > >> @@ -222,6 +222,25 @@ int __init efi_memblock_x86_reserve_range(void)
>> > >> return 0;
>> > >> }
>> > >>
>> > >> +char * __init efi_size_format(char *buf, size_t size, u64 bytes)
>> > >> +{
>> > >> + if (!bytes || (bytes & 0x3ff))
>> > >> + snprintf(buf, size, "%llu B", bytes);
>> > >> + else if (bytes & 0xfffff)
>> > >> + snprintf(buf, size, "%llu KiB", bytes >> 10);
>> > >> + else if (bytes & 0x3fffffff)
>> > >> + snprintf(buf, size, "%llu MiB", bytes >> 20);
>> > >> + else if (bytes & 0xffffffffff)
>> > >> + snprintf(buf, size, "%llu GiB", bytes >> 30);
>> > >> + else if (bytes & 0x3ffffffffffff)
>> > >> + snprintf(buf, size, "%llu TiB", bytes >> 40);
>> > >> + else if (bytes & 0xfffffffffffffff)
>> > >> + snprintf(buf, size, "%llu PiB", bytes >> 50);
>> > >> + else
>> > >> + snprintf(buf, size, "%llu EiB", bytes >> 60);
>> > >> + return buf;
>> >
>> > For me it looks like ffs with name in the table can be used.
>>
>> Could you provide a patch?
>
> I think this is functionally equivalent:
> #include <string.h>
>
> char * efi_size_format_ffsl(char *buf, size_t size, u64 bytes)
> {
> if (!bytes || ffsl(bytes) < 10)
> snprintf(buf, size, "%llu B", bytes);
> else if (ffsl(bytes) < 20)
> snprintf(buf, size, "%llu KiB", bytes >> 10);
> else if (ffsl(bytes) < 30)
> snprintf(buf, size, "%llu MiB", bytes >> 20);
> else if (ffsl(bytes) < 40)
> snprintf(buf, size, "%llu GiB", bytes >> 30);
> else if (ffsl(bytes) < 50)
> snprintf(buf, size, "%llu TiB", bytes >> 40);
> else if (ffsl(bytes) < 60)
> snprintf(buf, size, "%llu PiB", bytes >> 50);
> else
> snprintf(buf, size, "%llu EiB", bytes >> 60);
> return buf;
> }

No, no, I meant something slightly different.

We already have a table of units. Needs to be shared (patch already
cooked), second stage is to provide proper number and units.

Something like

units = string_units_2;
units_index = __ffs64(value) / 10;
value >>= units_index * 10;

snprintf("%llu%s", value, units[units_index]);


>
> Compiled as a user program with gcc -O2, the original results
> in mov and testq instructions:
> movq %rdi, %rbx
> je .L2
> testl $1023, %edx
> jne .L2
> testl $1048575, %edx
> jne .L15
> testl $1073741823, %edx
> jne .L16
> movabsq $1099511627775, %rax
> testq %rax, %rdx
> jne .L17
> movabsq $1125899906842623, %rax
> testq %rax, %rdx
> jne .L18
> movabsq $1152921504606846975, %rax
> movq %rdx, %rcx
> testq %rax, %rdx
> jne .L19
>
> while the ffs version uses bit scan forward (bsfq)
> and only needs cmpl instructions since the values
> are smaller:
> movq %rdi, %rbx
> je .L21
> bsfq %rdx, %rcx
> addq $1, %rcx
> cmpl $9, %ecx
> jle .L21
> cmpl $19, %ecx
> jle .L33
> cmpl $29, %ecx
> jle .L34
> cmpl $39, %ecx
> .p2align 4,,2
> jle .L35
> cmpl $49, %ecx
> .p2align 4,,2
> jle .L36
> cmpl $59, %ecx
> .p2align 4,,2
> jle .L37
>
> The kernel offers ffs(int x) but not ffsl(),

See above.

> and it
> uses inline assembly for one of these:
> bsfl
> bsfl, cmovzl
> bsfl, jnz, movl
>
> I don't know which code is the most efficient.

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-01-08 18:21    [W:0.064 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site