From: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Avoid extra calculation in ip_route_input_common
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:00:31 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EF175FF.70003@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1324446632.21340.4.camel@joe2Laptop>
On 12/21/2011 01:50 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 13:39 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 12/21/2011 01:23 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 13:12 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>>>> From: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>>
>>>> If previous condition doesn't meet, the later check will be cancelled.
>>>> So we don't need to do all the calculation.
> []
>>> commit c0b8c32b1c96afc9b32b717927330025cc1c501e
>>> Author: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
>>> Date: Thu Apr 10 04:00:28 2008 -0700
>>>
>>> IPV4: use xor rather than multiple ands for route compare
>>>
>>> The comparison in ip_route_input is a hot path, by recoding the C
>>> "and" as bit operations, fewer conditional branches get generated
>>> so the code should be faster. Maybe someday Gcc will be smart
>>> enough to do this?
>> This is what confused me, why "fewer conditional branches get generated"
>> will make code faster?
>> In this example, I think the best condition when daddr is different, we
>> only need to go to one branch do compare then quit, won't this be faster?
>
> if (a && b)
> ...
> pseudo-codes to:
> if (!a)
> goto fail;
> if (!b)
> goto fail;
> ...
> fail:
>
> Each of those conditional branches has a cost.
> Combining tests of variables in the same cache lines
> has relatively little cost compared to the conditional
> branches.
>
That make sense :)
> That's the theory anyway.
>
> If you have tests that demonstrate otherwise, please
> provide them.
>
I think the previous patch should have done such test, otherwise they
won't do this change.
Thanks for your reply, that clear my confusion.
Regards,
Michael Wang
> cheers, Joe
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-21 6:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-21 5:12 [PATCH] Avoid extra calculation in ip_route_input_common Michael Wang
2011-12-21 5:19 ` Michael Wang
2011-12-21 5:23 ` Joe Perches
2011-12-21 5:39 ` Michael Wang
2011-12-21 5:50 ` Joe Perches
2011-12-21 6:00 ` Michael Wang [this message]
2011-12-21 5:57 ` David Miller
2011-12-21 6:04 ` Michael Wang
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=4EF175FF.70003@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shemminger@vyatta.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.