Re: [PATCH 2/5] bitops: compile time optimization for hweight_long(CONSTANT)

[Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@googlemail.com>]

On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 01:35:41AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 02/08/2010 01:28 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >
> >Well, in the second version I did replace a 'call _hweightXX' with
> >the actual popcnt opcode so the alternatives is only needed to do the
> >replacement during boot. We might just as well do
> >
> >if (X86_FEATURE_POPCNT)
> >	__hw_popcnt()
> >else
> >	__software_hweight()
> >
> >The only advantage of the alternatives is that it would save us the
> >if-else test above each time we do cpumask_weight. However, the if-else
> >approach is much more readable and obviates the need for all that macro
> >magic and taking special care of calling c function from within asm. And
> >since we do not call cpumask_weight all that often I'll honestly opt for
> >alternative-less solution...
> >
> 
> The highest performance will be gotten by alternatives, but it only
> make sense if they are inlined at the point of use... otherwise it's
> basically pointless.

The popcnt-replacement part of the alternative would be as fast as
possible since we're adding the opcode there but the slow version would
add the additional overhead of saving/restoring the registers before
calling the software hweight implementation. I'll do some tracing to see
what a change like that would cost on machines which don't have popcnt.

Let me prep another version when I get back on Wed. (currently
travelling) with all the stuff we discussed to see how it would turn.

Thanks,
Boris.