Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/4] bitops: speed up hweight<N>()

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 31.05.19 at 21:40, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 31/05/2019 02:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> --- a/xen/include/xen/bitops.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/bitops.h
>> @@ -153,41 +153,54 @@ static __inline__ int get_count_order(un
>>  
>>  static inline unsigned int generic_hweight32(unsigned int w)
>>  {
>> -    unsigned int res = (w & 0x55555555) + ((w >> 1) & 0x55555555);
>> -    res = (res & 0x33333333) + ((res >> 2) & 0x33333333);
>> -    res = (res & 0x0F0F0F0F) + ((res >> 4) & 0x0F0F0F0F);
>> -    res = (res & 0x00FF00FF) + ((res >> 8) & 0x00FF00FF);
>> -    return (res & 0x0000FFFF) + ((res >> 16) & 0x0000FFFF);
>> +    w -= (w >> 1) & 0x55555555;
>> +    w =  (w & 0x33333333) + ((w >> 2) & 0x33333333);
>> +    w =  (w + (w >> 4)) & 0x0f0f0f0f;
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_FAST_MULTIPLY
>> +    return (w * 0x01010101) >> 24;
>> +#else
>> +    w += w >> 8;
>> +
>> +    return (w + (w >> 16)) & 0xff;
>> +#endif
> 
> This would be slightly shorter, less liable to bitrot, and IMO cleaner,
> to do
> 
> if ( IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAS_FAST_MULTIPLY) )
>     w = w * 0x01010101) >> 24;
> else
>     w += w >> 8;
> 
> return w;

Would you be okay with

static inline unsigned int generic_hweight32(unsigned int w)
{
    w -= (w >> 1) & 0x55555555;
    w =  (w & 0x33333333) + ((w >> 2) & 0x33333333);
    w =  (w + (w >> 4)) & 0x0f0f0f0f;

    if ( IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAS_FAST_MULTIPLY) )
        return (w * 0x01010101) >> 24;

    w += w >> 8;

    return (w + (w >> 16)) & 0xff;
}

despite there then still being two return statements?

Jan



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel