mirror of
https://mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn/git/linux.git
synced 2024-11-25 21:24:08 +08:00
fib_trie: Use index & (~0ul << n->bits) instead of index >> n->bits
In doing performance testing and analysis of the changes I recently found that by shifting the index I had created an unnecessary dependency. I have updated the code so that we instead shift a mask by bits and then just test against that as that should save us about 2 CPU cycles since we can generate the mask while the key and pos are being processed. Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
This commit is contained in:
parent
bc579ae5f9
commit
b3832117b4
@ -961,12 +961,12 @@ static struct tnode *fib_find_node(struct trie *t, u32 key)
|
||||
* prefix plus zeros for the bits in the cindex. The index
|
||||
* is the difference between the key and this value. From
|
||||
* this we can actually derive several pieces of data.
|
||||
* if !(index >> bits)
|
||||
* we know the value is cindex
|
||||
* else
|
||||
* if (index & (~0ul << bits))
|
||||
* we have a mismatch in skip bits and failed
|
||||
* else
|
||||
* we know the value is cindex
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (index >> n->bits)
|
||||
if (index & (~0ul << n->bits))
|
||||
return NULL;
|
||||
|
||||
/* we have found a leaf. Prefixes have already been compared */
|
||||
@ -1301,12 +1301,12 @@ int fib_table_lookup(struct fib_table *tb, const struct flowi4 *flp,
|
||||
* prefix plus zeros for the "bits" in the prefix. The index
|
||||
* is the difference between the key and this value. From
|
||||
* this we can actually derive several pieces of data.
|
||||
* if !(index >> bits)
|
||||
* we know the value is child index
|
||||
* else
|
||||
* if (index & (~0ul << bits))
|
||||
* we have a mismatch in skip bits and failed
|
||||
* else
|
||||
* we know the value is cindex
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (index >> n->bits)
|
||||
if (index & (~0ul << n->bits))
|
||||
break;
|
||||
|
||||
/* we have found a leaf. Prefixes have already been compared */
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user