Re: [PATCH 1/2] rtlwifi: Fix improve function 'rtl_addr_delay()' in core.c
From: ByeoungWook Kim
Date: Wed Feb 03 2016 - 12:49:33 EST
Hi David,
2016-02-03 23:41 GMT+09:00 David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> 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 cmp dword ptr [addr],0F9h
0095144C jne main+35h (0951455h)
a();
0095144E call a (09510EBh)
00951453 jmp main+83h (09514A3h)
else if (addr == 0xfa)
00951455 cmp dword ptr [addr],0FAh
0095145C jne main+45h (0951465h)
a();
0095145E call a (09510EBh)
00951463 jmp main+83h (09514A3h)
else if (addr == 0xfb)
00951465 cmp dword ptr [addr],0FBh
0095146C jne main+55h (0951475h)
a();
0095146E call a (09510EBh)
00951473 jmp main+83h (09514A3h)
else if (addr == 0xfc)
00951475 cmp dword ptr [addr],0FCh
0095147C jne main+65h (0951485h)
b();
0095147E call b (09510E6h)
00951483 jmp main+83h (09514A3h)
else if (addr == 0xfd)
00951485 cmp dword ptr [addr],0FDh
0095148C jne main+75h (0951495h)
b();
0095148E call b (09510E6h)
00951493 jmp main+83h (09514A3h)
else if (addr == 0xfe)
00951495 cmp dword ptr [addr],0FEh
0095149C jne main+83h (09514A3h)
b();
0095149E call b (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 <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> 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 mov eax,dword ptr [addr]
011C1448 mov dword ptr [ebp-0D0h],eax
011C144E mov ecx,dword ptr [ebp-0D0h]
011C1454 sub ecx,0F9h
011C145A mov dword ptr [ebp-0D0h],ecx
011C1460 cmp dword ptr [ebp-0D0h],5
011C1467 ja $LN6+28h (011C149Eh)
011C1469 mov edx,dword ptr [ebp-0D0h]
011C146F jmp dword ptr [edx*4+11C14B4h]
{
case 0xf9: a(); break;
011C1476 call a (011C10EBh)
011C147B jmp $LN6+28h (011C149Eh)
case 0xfa: a(); break;
011C147D call a (011C10EBh)
011C1482 jmp $LN6+28h (011C149Eh)
case 0xfb: a(); break;
011C1484 call a (011C10EBh)
011C1489 jmp $LN6+28h (011C149Eh)
case 0xfc: b(); break;
011C148B call b (011C10E6h)
011C1490 jmp $LN6+28h (011C149Eh)
case 0xfd: b(); break;
011C1492 call b (011C10E6h)
011C1497 jmp $LN6+28h (011C149Eh)
case 0xfe: b(); break;
011C1499 call b (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.