All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Maksym Planeta <mcsim.planeta@gmail.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
	namhyung@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: page: get_order() optimization
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:33:42 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1301340822.6302.90.camel@debian> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110328050844.GC26322@elte.hu>

On Mon, 28/03/2011 at 07:08 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Have you looked at the disassembly, why does the size increase? I'd expect such 
> a straight assembly optimization to result in smaller code: in the non-constant 
> case it should be the same size as before, in the constant case it should be 
> smaller, because BSR should be smaller than an open-coded search loop, right?


Here is disassembly of patched get_order() with "inline" from
"kernel/kexec.c":

     a6c:       48 8b 5d c8             mov    -0x38(%rbp),%rbx
     a70:       e8 0b fd ff ff          callq  780 <get_order.clone.7>

0000000000000780 <get_order.clone.7>:
     780:       55                      push   %rbp
     781:       b8 01 00 00 00          mov    $0x1,%eax
     786:       48 89 e5                mov    %rsp,%rbp
     789:       c9                      leaveq 
     78a:       c3                      retq   

My version of gcc is gcc (Debian 4.5.2-4) 4.5.2, probably I should
upgrade my gcc version for better inline expansions.

-- 
Thanks,

Maksym Planeta


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Maksym Planeta <mcsim.planeta@gmail.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
	namhyung@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: page: get_order() optimization
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:33:42 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1301340822.6302.90.camel@debian> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110328050844.GC26322@elte.hu>

On Mon, 28/03/2011 at 07:08 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Have you looked at the disassembly, why does the size increase? I'd expect such 
> a straight assembly optimization to result in smaller code: in the non-constant 
> case it should be the same size as before, in the constant case it should be 
> smaller, because BSR should be smaller than an open-coded search loop, right?


Here is disassembly of patched get_order() with "inline" from
"kernel/kexec.c":

     a6c:       48 8b 5d c8             mov    -0x38(%rbp),%rbx
     a70:       e8 0b fd ff ff          callq  780 <get_order.clone.7>

0000000000000780 <get_order.clone.7>:
     780:       55                      push   %rbp
     781:       b8 01 00 00 00          mov    $0x1,%eax
     786:       48 89 e5                mov    %rsp,%rbp
     789:       c9                      leaveq 
     78a:       c3                      retq   

My version of gcc is gcc (Debian 4.5.2-4) 4.5.2, probably I should
upgrade my gcc version for better inline expansions.

-- 
Thanks,

Maksym Planeta


  reply	other threads:[~2011-03-28 19:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-03-27  8:45 [PATCH v2] x86: page: get_order() optimization Maksym Planeta
2011-03-27  8:45 ` Maksym Planeta
2011-03-27 11:33 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-27 11:33   ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-27 16:22   ` Peter Hüwe
2011-03-27 16:22     ` Peter Hüwe
2011-03-27 17:15   ` Maksym Planeta
2011-03-27 17:15     ` Maksym Planeta
2011-03-28  5:08     ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-28  5:08       ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-28 19:33       ` Maksym Planeta [this message]
2011-03-28 19:33         ` Maksym Planeta
2011-03-28 19:44         ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-03-28 19:44           ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-04-01 14:08           ` Maksym Planeta
2011-04-01 14:08             ` Maksym Planeta
2011-03-28 19:47 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-03-28 19:47   ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-03-29  7:27   ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-29  7:27     ` Ingo Molnar

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1301340822.6302.90.camel@debian \
    --to=mcsim.planeta@gmail.com \
    --cc=JBeulich@novell.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=namhyung@gmail.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.