Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: aspeed: fixup vhub port irq handling

From: Felipe Balbi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 12:56:22 +0300

Hi,

Tao Ren <[email-masked]> writes:
>> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/aspeed-vhub/core.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/aspeed-vhub/core.c
>> > index cdf96911e4b1..be7bb64e3594 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/aspeed-vhub/core.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/aspeed-vhub/core.c
>> > @@ -135,13 +135,9 @@ static irqreturn_t ast_vhub_irq(int irq, void *data)
>> >  
>> >  	/* Handle device interrupts */
>> >  	if (istat & vhub->port_irq_mask) {
>> > -		unsigned long bitmap = istat;
>> > -		int offset = VHUB_IRQ_DEV1_BIT;
>> > -		int size = VHUB_IRQ_DEV1_BIT + vhub->max_ports;
>> > -
>> > -		for_each_set_bit_from(offset, &bitmap, size) {
>> > -			i = offset - VHUB_IRQ_DEV1_BIT;
>> > -			ast_vhub_dev_irq(&vhub->ports[i].dev);
>> > +		for (i = 0; i < vhub->max_ports; i++) {
>> > +			if (istat & VHUB_DEV_IRQ(i))
>> > +				ast_vhub_dev_irq(&vhub->ports[i].dev);
>> 
>> how have you measured your statement above? for_each_set_bit() does
>> exactly what you did. Unless your architecture has an instruction which
>> helps finds the next set bit (like cls on ARM), which, then, makes it
>> much faster.
>
> I did some testing and result shows for() loop runs faster than
> for_each_set_bit() loop. Please refer to details below (discussion with
> Benjamin in the original patch) and kindly let me know your
> suggestions.

no strong feelings, just surprised you're already worried about 20~40
cycles of cpu time ;-)

patch queued for next merge window

-- 
balbi

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel