From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] optimize ktime_divns for constant divisors
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 13:02:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2165831.DQoLFmGhIf@wuerfel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.11.1412040143260.470@knanqh.ubzr>
On Thursday 04 December 2014 02:23:37 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 03 December 2014 14:43:06 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > At least on ARM, do_div() is optimized to turn constant divisors into
> > > an inline multiplication by the reciprocal value at compile time.
> > > However this optimization is missed entirely whenever ktime_divns() is
> > > used and the slow out-of-line division code is used all the time.
> > >
> > > Let ktime_divns() use do_div() inline whenever the divisor is constant
> > > and small enough. This will make things like ktime_to_us() and
> > > ktime_to_ms() much faster.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>
> >
> > Very cool. I've been thinking about doing something similar for the
> > general case but couldn't get the math to work.
> >
> > Can you think of an architecture-independent way to ktime_to_sec,
> > ktime_to_ms, and ktime_to_us efficiently based on what you did for
> > the ARM do_div implementation?
>
> Sure. gcc generates rather shitty code on ARM compared to the output
> from my do_div() implementation. But here it is:
>
> u64 ktime_to_us(ktime_t kt)
> {
> u64 ns = ktime_to_ns(kt);
> u32 x_lo, x_hi, y_lo, y_hi;
> u64 res, carry;
>
> x_hi = ns >> 32;
> x_lo = ns;
> y_hi = 0x83126e97;
> y_lo = 0x8d4fdf3b;
>
> res = (u64)x_lo * y_lo;
> carry = (u64)(u32)res + y_lo;
> res = (res >> 32) + (carry >> 32);
>
> res += (u64)x_lo * y_hi;
> carry = (u64)(u32)res + (u64)x_hi * y_lo;
> res = (res >> 32) + (carry >> 32);
>
> res += (u64)x_hi * y_hi;
> return res >> 9;
> }
Ok, I see, thanks for the example. I also tried this on x86, and it takes
about twice as long as do_div on my Opteron, so it wouldn't be as helpful
as I hoped.
On a related note, I wonder if we can come up with a more efficient
implementation for do_div on ARMv7ve, and I think we should add the
Makefile logic to build with -march=armv7ve when we know that we do
not need to support processors without idiv.
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-12-04 12:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-03 19:43 [PATCH] optimize ktime_divns for constant divisors Nicolas Pitre
2014-12-03 20:03 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-12-04 7:23 ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-12-04 12:02 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2014-12-04 13:46 ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-12-04 14:56 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-12-04 16:47 ` Nicolas Pitre
[not found] ` <OF0EDEDB1C.C03829F7-ON48257DA5.00062083-48257DA5.0007628B@zte.com.cn>
2014-12-05 4:30 ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-12-05 10:08 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-12-05 17:15 ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-12-03 20:16 ` Robert Jarzmik
2014-12-03 20:37 ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-12-05 18:00 ` Nicolas Pitre
2014-12-05 21:03 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-12-18 21:21 ` John Stultz
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=2165831.DQoLFmGhIf@wuerfel \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).