From: "George Spelvin" <linux@horizon.com>
To: sam@ravnborg.org, zengzhaoxiu@163.com
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux@horizon.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch V4] lib: GCD: Use binary GCD algorithm instead of Euclidean
Date: 7 May 2016 18:30:18 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160507223018.17111.qmail@ns.horizon.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160507112308.GA2612@ravnborg.org>
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> sparc64 have an efficient ffs implementation.
> We use run-time patching to use the proper version
> depending on the actual sparc cpu.
>
> As this is determinded at config time, then let the
> sparc cpu that has the efficient ffs benefit from this.
>
> In other words - select CPU_NO_EFFICIENT_FFS only for SPARC32.
I'm not sure this is the right thing.
It's always a function call, and there's boot-time code patching to use
either an unrolled binary search or a POPC instructon on processors that
have that instruction.
The NO_EFFICIENT_FFS isn't much slower than the __ffs version, so the
call/return alone might eat the difference, and if the CPU doesn't have
POPC support it's definitely a lose.
Quite simply, gcd isn't important enough to be worth the same boot-time
code patching, and if we have to use one on both types of CPU the the
NO_EFFICIENT_FFS path is the safer alternative in case of uncertainty.
Would you be willing to try benchmarking it? The baseline code, plus two
versions of the __ffs code using the two different __ffs implementations
(forced out of line by compiling from assembler source or using
inine asm and __attribute((noinline))).
By the way, the SPARC64 implementation could be improved.
It's currently 5 instructions:
__ffs:
neg %o0, %g1
xnor %o0, %g1, %o1
popc %o1, %o0
retl
sub %o0, 1, %o0
That could be improved to 4:
sub %o0, 1, %g1
andn %g1, %o0, %g1
retl
popc %g1, %o0
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-07 22:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-06 9:42 [patch V4] lib: GCD: Use binary GCD algorithm instead of Euclidean zengzhaoxiu
2016-05-06 23:00 ` Andrew Morton
2016-05-07 8:41 ` George Spelvin
2016-05-07 10:46 ` Andreas Schwab
2016-05-07 20:41 ` George Spelvin
2016-05-08 12:52 ` Zhaoxiu Zeng
2016-05-07 11:23 ` Sam Ravnborg
2016-05-07 22:30 ` George Spelvin [this message]
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=20160507223018.17111.qmail@ns.horizon.com \
--to=linux@horizon.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zengzhaoxiu@163.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 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).