From: "Bob Pearson" <rpearson@systemfabricworks.com>
To: "'Joakim Tjernlund'" <joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se>
Cc: "'Andrew Morton'" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"'frank zago'" <fzago@systemfabricworks.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] add slice by 8 algorithm to crc32.c
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 12:27:26 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <026801cc5394$f54f6c70$dfee4550$@systemfabricworks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OF14136E0E.3F2388EF-ONC12578E3.00301969-C12578E3.00338524@transmode.se>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Modify all 'i' loops from for (i = 0; i < foo; i++) { ... } to for
(i =
> > foo
> > > > - 1; i >= 0; i--) { ... }
> > >
> > > That should be (i = foo; i ; --i) { ... }
> >
> > Shouldn't make much difference, branch on zero bit or branch on sign
bit.
> > But at the end of the day didn't help on Nehalem.
I figured out why "for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {...}" is faster than "for (;
len; len--) {...}" on my system.
The current code is
for (; Ien; len--) {
load *++p
...
}
Which turns into (in fake assembly)
top:
dec len
inc p
load p
...
test len
branch neq top
But when I replace that with
for(i = 0; i < len; i++) {
load *++p
...
}
Gcc turns it into
top:
load p[i]
i++
...
compare i, len
branch lt top
which is fewer instructions and i++ is well scheduled. Incrementing the
pointer has been moved out of the loop.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-05 17:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <OF4AE0115F.3AA5397E-ONC12578DF.002EC6DF-C12578DF.003348E5@transmode.se>
2011-08-02 21:14 ` [PATCH] add slice by 8 algorithm to crc32.c Bob Pearson
2011-08-02 21:19 ` Bob Pearson
2011-08-04 11:54 ` Joakim Tjernlund
2011-08-04 18:53 ` Bob Pearson
2011-08-05 9:22 ` Joakim Tjernlund
2011-08-05 15:51 ` Bob Pearson
2011-08-08 7:11 ` Joakim Tjernlund
2011-08-05 17:27 ` Bob Pearson [this message]
2011-08-08 7:15 ` Joakim Tjernlund
[not found] ` <OF14136E0E.3F2388EF-ONC12578E3.00301969-C12578E3.00338524@LocalDomain>
2011-08-05 13:34 ` Joakim Tjernlund
2011-08-08 9:28 George Spelvin
2011-08-08 10:31 ` Joakim Tjernlund
2011-08-08 10:52 ` George Spelvin
2011-08-08 11:11 ` Joakim Tjernlund
2011-08-08 17:04 ` Bob Pearson
[not found] ` <OFEA1BD2B2.B2A7F07F-ONC12578E6.003D368C-C12578E6.003D7468@LocalDomain>
2011-08-08 11:24 ` Joakim Tjernlund
2011-08-08 11:42 ` Joakim Tjernlund
2011-08-08 12:54 ` George Spelvin
2011-08-08 17:01 ` Bob Pearson
2011-08-08 20:45 ` George Spelvin
2011-08-08 22:21 ` Bob Pearson
2011-08-08 16:54 ` Bob Pearson
2011-08-08 16:50 ` Bob Pearson
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-07-20 22:19 frank zago
2011-07-28 22:16 ` Andrew Morton
2011-07-29 1:47 ` Bob Pearson
2011-08-01 19:39 ` Andrew Morton
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='026801cc5394$f54f6c70$dfee4550$@systemfabricworks.com' \
--to=rpearson@systemfabricworks.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fzago@systemfabricworks.com \
--cc=joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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