Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Nfksx-0006J4-Oq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:03:59 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60482 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nfksw-0006Ic-Gi for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:03:58 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Nfksv-0003PW-0s for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:03:58 -0500 Received: from tama500.ecl.ntt.co.jp ([129.60.39.148]:49241) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Nfksu-0003PE-BZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:03:56 -0500 Message-ID: <4B74B70A.4030805@lab.ntt.co.jp> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:03:54 +0900 From: OHMURA Kei MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4B728FF9.6010707@lab.ntt.co.jp> <4B72B28E.6010801@redhat.com> <4B72D706.3070602@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4B72D706.3070602@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH v2] qemu-kvm: Speed up of the dirty-bitmap-traveling List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori , Avi Kivity , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" Cc: ohmura.kei@lab.ntt.co.jp, mtosatti@redhat.com, drepper@redhat.com, Yoshiaki Tamura On 02/11/2010 Anthony Liguori wrote: > Oh, I see what's happening here. Yes, I think a leul_to_cpu() makes more > sense. Maybe I'm missing something here. I couldn't find leul_to_cpu(), so have defined it in bswap.h. Correct? --- a/bswap.h +++ b/bswap.h @@ -205,8 +205,10 @@ static inline void cpu_to_be32wu(uint32_t *p, uint32_t v) #ifdef HOST_WORDS_BIGENDIAN #define cpu_to_32wu cpu_to_be32wu +#define leul_to_cpu(v) le ## HOST_LONG_BITS ## _to_cpu(v) #else #define cpu_to_32wu cpu_to_le32wu +#define leul_to_cpu(v) (v) #endif On 02/10/2010 Ulrich Drepper wrote: > If you're optimizing this code you might want to do it all. The > compiler might not see through the bswap call and create unnecessary > data dependencies. Especially problematic if the bitmap is really > sparse. Also, the outer test is != while the inner test is >. Be > consistent. I suggest to replace the inner loop with > > do { > ... > } while (c != 0); > > Depending on how sparse the bitmap is populated this might reduce the > number of data dependencies quite a bit. Combining all comments, the code would be like this. if (bitmap_ul[i] != 0) { c = leul_to_cpu(bitmap_ul[i]); do { j = ffsl(c) - 1; c &= ~(1ul << j); page_number = i * HOST_LONG_BITS + j; addr1 = page_number * TARGET_PAGE_SIZE; addr = offset + addr1; ram_addr = cpu_get_physical_page_desc(addr); cpu_physical_memory_set_dirty(ram_addr); } while (c != 0); }