From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Cc: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] powerpc32: optimise csum_partial() loop
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 23:39:38 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150806043938.GE18479@gate.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1438828301.2097.126.camel@freescale.com>
On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 09:31:41PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-08-05 at 19:30 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 03:29:35PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > > On the 8xx, load latency is 2 cycles and taking branches also takes
> > > 2 cycles. So let's unroll the loop.
> >
> > This is not true for most other 32-bit PowerPC; this patch makes
> > performance worse on e.g. 6xx/7xx/7xxx. Let's not!
>
> Chips with a load latency greater than 2 cycles should also benefit from the
> unrolling. Have you benchmarked this somewhere and seen it reduce
> performance? Do you know of any 32-bit PPC chips with a load latency less
> than 2 cycles?
The original loop was already optimal, as the comment said. The new
code adds extra instructions and a mispredicted branch. You also
might get less overlap between the loads and adde (I didn't check
if there is any originally): those instructions are no longer
interleaved.
I think it is a stupid idea to optimise code for all 32-bit PowerPC
CPUs based on solely what is best for a particularly simple, slow
implementation; and that is what this patch is doing.
Segher
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-06 4:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-05 13:29 [PATCH v2 0/2] powerpc32: Optimise csum_partial() Christophe Leroy
2015-08-05 13:29 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] powerpc32: optimise a few instructions in csum_partial() Christophe Leroy
2015-08-05 13:29 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] powerpc32: optimise csum_partial() loop Christophe Leroy
2015-08-06 0:30 ` Segher Boessenkool
2015-08-06 2:31 ` Scott Wood
2015-08-06 4:39 ` Segher Boessenkool [this message]
2015-08-06 22:45 ` Scott Wood
2015-08-06 23:25 ` Segher Boessenkool
2015-08-17 10:56 ` leroy christophe
2015-08-17 11:00 ` leroy christophe
2015-08-17 13:05 ` leroy christophe
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=20150806043938.GE18479@gate.crashing.org \
--to=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=scottwood@freescale.com \
/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.