[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-fsdevel
Subject:    Re: [WIP 0/3] Memory model and atomic API in Rust
From:       "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck () kernel ! org>
Date:       2024-04-09 4:47:04
Message-ID: 6fa87fef-5676-4a26-86d9-45eca6ebd798 () paulmck-laptop
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 08:58:18PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 06:03:11PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 09:55:23AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 05:02:37PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > In my ideal world, the compiler would turn this into:
> > > > 
> > > > 	newfolio->flags |= folio->flags & MIGRATE_MASK;
> > > 
> > > Why not accumulate the changes in a mask, and then apply the mask the
> > > one time?  (In situations where __folio_set_foo() need not apply.)
> > 
> > But it irks me that we can't tell the compiler this is a safe
> > transformation for it to make. There are a number of places where
> > similar things happen.
> 
> Same thing comes up with bignum code - you really want to be able to
> tell the compiler "you can apply x/y/z optimizations for these
> functions", e.g. replace add(mul(a, b), c) with fma(a, b, c).
> 
> Compiler optimizations are just algebraic transformations, we just need
> a way to tell the compiler what the algebraic properties of our
> functions are.

That might indeed be more straightforward than doing this on a per-type
basis.  But the C++ guys would likely just start shouting "template
metaprogramming!!!"  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]