top: eliminate yet more gcc subscript resolution bloat

This patch is inspired by the 'minimize numa overhead'
patch. It trades the use of subscripts for pointers to
avoid gcc repeated subscript offset calculation bloat.

Now, throughout the cpus_refresh function, a subscript
will be resolved just once & this will (dramatically?)
reduce the path-length taken for each and every frame!

For example, a non-optimized compilation could produce
400+ fewer machine instructions through pointer usage.

[ ok, optimized compiles only save 18+ instructions! ]

Lastly, any residual 'symmetry only' crap is now gone!

Signed-off-by: Jim Warner <james.warner@comcast.net>

diff --git a/top/top.c b/top/top.c
index 9d12693d3b59339544a035693581a6520671a534..151693d4633e12e22c1ecda3c3c14a52cecb534e 100644 (file)
--- a/top/top.c
+++ b/top/top.c
@@ -2298,6 +2298,7 @@ static CPU_t *cpus_refresh (CPU_t *cpus) {
    static FILE *fp = NULL;
    static int siz, sav_slot = -1;
    static char *buf;
+   CPU_t *sum_ptr;                               // avoid gcc subscript bloat
    int i, num, tot_read;
 #ifndef NUMA_DISABLE
    int node;
@@ -2342,76 +2343,76 @@ static CPU_t *cpus_refresh (CPU_t *cpus) {
  #undef buffGRW
 
    // remember from last time around
-   memcpy(&cpus[sumSLOT].sav, &cpus[sumSLOT].cur, sizeof(CT_t));
+   sum_ptr = &cpus[sumSLOT];
+   memcpy(&sum_ptr->sav, &sum_ptr->cur, sizeof(CT_t));
    // then value the last slot with the cpu summary line
    if (4 > sscanf(bp, "cpu %Lu %Lu %Lu %Lu %Lu %Lu %Lu %Lu"
-      , &cpus[sumSLOT].cur.u, &cpus[sumSLOT].cur.n, &cpus[sumSLOT].cur.s
-      , &cpus[sumSLOT].cur.i, &cpus[sumSLOT].cur.w, &cpus[sumSLOT].cur.x
-      , &cpus[sumSLOT].cur.y, &cpus[sumSLOT].cur.z))
+      , &sum_ptr->cur.u, &sum_ptr->cur.n, &sum_ptr->cur.s
+      , &sum_ptr->cur.i, &sum_ptr->cur.w, &sum_ptr->cur.x
+      , &sum_ptr->cur.y, &sum_ptr->cur.z))
          error_exit(N_txt(FAIL_statget_txt));
 #ifndef CPU_ZEROTICS
-   cpus[sumSLOT].cur.tot = cpus[sumSLOT].cur.u + cpus[sumSLOT].cur.s
-      + cpus[sumSLOT].cur.n + cpus[sumSLOT].cur.i + cpus[sumSLOT].cur.w
-      + cpus[sumSLOT].cur.x + cpus[sumSLOT].cur.y + cpus[sumSLOT].cur.z;
+   sum_ptr->cur.tot = sum_ptr->cur.u + sum_ptr->cur.s
+      + sum_ptr->cur.n + sum_ptr->cur.i + sum_ptr->cur.w
+      + sum_ptr->cur.x + sum_ptr->cur.y + sum_ptr->cur.z;
    /* if a cpu has registered substantially fewer tics than those expected,
       we'll force it to be treated as 'idle' so as not to present misleading
       percentages. */
-   cpus[sumSLOT].edge =
-      ((cpus[sumSLOT].cur.tot - cpus[sumSLOT].sav.tot) / smp_num_cpus) / (100 / TICS_EDGE);
+   sum_ptr->edge =
+      ((sum_ptr->cur.tot - sum_ptr->sav.tot) / smp_num_cpus) / (100 / TICS_EDGE);
 #endif
 
 #ifndef NUMA_DISABLE
    // forget all of the prior node statistics (maybe)
    if (CHKw(Curwin, View_CPUNOD))
-      memset(&cpus[sumSLOT + 1], 0, Numa_node_tot * sizeof(CPU_t));
+      memset(sum_ptr + 1, 0, Numa_node_tot * sizeof(CPU_t));
 #endif
 
    // now value each separate cpu's tics...
    for (i = 0; i < sumSLOT; i++) {
+      CPU_t *cpu_ptr = &cpus[i];               // avoid gcc subscript bloat
 #ifdef PRETEND8CPUS
       bp = buf;
 #endif
       bp = 1 + strchr(bp, '\n');
       // remember from last time around
-      memcpy(&cpus[i].sav, &cpus[i].cur, sizeof(CT_t));
-      if (4 > sscanf(bp, "cpu%d %Lu %Lu %Lu %Lu %Lu %Lu %Lu %Lu", &cpus[i].id
-         , &cpus[i].cur.u, &cpus[i].cur.n, &cpus[i].cur.s
-         , &cpus[i].cur.i, &cpus[i].cur.w, &cpus[i].cur.x
-         , &cpus[i].cur.y, &cpus[i].cur.z)) {
-            memmove(&cpus[i], &cpus[sumSLOT], sizeof(CPU_t));
+      memcpy(&cpu_ptr->sav, &cpu_ptr->cur, sizeof(CT_t));
+      if (4 > sscanf(bp, "cpu%d %Lu %Lu %Lu %Lu %Lu %Lu %Lu %Lu", &cpu_ptr->id
+         , &cpu_ptr->cur.u, &cpu_ptr->cur.n, &cpu_ptr->cur.s
+         , &cpu_ptr->cur.i, &cpu_ptr->cur.w, &cpu_ptr->cur.x
+         , &cpu_ptr->cur.y, &cpu_ptr->cur.z)) {
+            memmove(cpu_ptr, sum_ptr, sizeof(CPU_t));
             break;        // tolerate cpus taken offline
       }
 
 #ifndef CPU_ZEROTICS
-      cpus[i].edge = cpus[sumSLOT].edge;
-      // this is for symmetry only, it's not currently required
-      cpus[i].cur.tot = cpus[sumSLOT].cur.tot;
+      cpu_ptr->edge = sum_ptr->edge;
 #endif
 #ifdef PRETEND8CPUS
-      cpus[i].id = i;
+      cpu_ptr->id = i;
 #endif
 #ifndef NUMA_DISABLE
       /* henceforth, with just a little more arithmetic we can avoid
          maintaining *any* node stats unless they're actually needed */
       if (CHKw(Curwin, View_CPUNOD)
       && Numa_node_tot
-      && -1 < (node = Numa_node_of_cpu(cpus[i].id))) {
+      && -1 < (node = Numa_node_of_cpu(cpu_ptr->id))) {
          // use our own pointer to avoid gcc subscript bloat
-         CPU_t *nod_ptr = &cpus[sumSLOT + 1 + node];
-         nod_ptr->cur.u += cpus[i].cur.u; nod_ptr->sav.u += cpus[i].sav.u;
-         nod_ptr->cur.n += cpus[i].cur.n; nod_ptr->sav.n += cpus[i].sav.n;
-         nod_ptr->cur.s += cpus[i].cur.s; nod_ptr->sav.s += cpus[i].sav.s;
-         nod_ptr->cur.i += cpus[i].cur.i; nod_ptr->sav.i += cpus[i].sav.i;
-         nod_ptr->cur.w += cpus[i].cur.w; nod_ptr->sav.w += cpus[i].sav.w;
-         nod_ptr->cur.x += cpus[i].cur.x; nod_ptr->sav.x += cpus[i].sav.x;
-         nod_ptr->cur.y += cpus[i].cur.y; nod_ptr->sav.y += cpus[i].sav.y;
-         nod_ptr->cur.z += cpus[i].cur.z; nod_ptr->sav.z += cpus[i].sav.z;
+         CPU_t *nod_ptr = sum_ptr + 1 + node;
+         nod_ptr->cur.u += cpu_ptr->cur.u; nod_ptr->sav.u += cpu_ptr->sav.u;
+         nod_ptr->cur.n += cpu_ptr->cur.n; nod_ptr->sav.n += cpu_ptr->sav.n;
+         nod_ptr->cur.s += cpu_ptr->cur.s; nod_ptr->sav.s += cpu_ptr->sav.s;
+         nod_ptr->cur.i += cpu_ptr->cur.i; nod_ptr->sav.i += cpu_ptr->sav.i;
+         nod_ptr->cur.w += cpu_ptr->cur.w; nod_ptr->sav.w += cpu_ptr->sav.w;
+         nod_ptr->cur.x += cpu_ptr->cur.x; nod_ptr->sav.x += cpu_ptr->sav.x;
+         nod_ptr->cur.y += cpu_ptr->cur.y; nod_ptr->sav.y += cpu_ptr->sav.y;
+         nod_ptr->cur.z += cpu_ptr->cur.z; nod_ptr->sav.z += cpu_ptr->sav.z;
 #ifndef CPU_ZEROTICS
          /* yep, we re-value this repeatedly for each cpu encountered, but we
             can then avoid a prior loop to selectively initialize each node */
-         nod_ptr->edge = cpus[sumSLOT].edge;
+         nod_ptr->edge = sum_ptr->edge;
 #endif
-         cpus[i].node = node;
+         cpu_ptr->node = node;
       }
 #endif
    } // end: for each cpu