From: Luke Starrett <luke.starrett@broadcom.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
will.deacon@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Implement optimised IP checksum helpers
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 14:32:25 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49017ef4-1e96-3684-dec1-5f013724f8f2@broadcom.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5734B899.3040207@arm.com>
Hi Robin,
On 5/12/2016 1:08 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> Hi Luke,
>
> On 12/05/16 16:34, Luke Starrett wrote:
>> Hi Robin,
>>
>> I pulled this in to a userspace test app expecting that the __uint128_t
>> type might cause GCC to emit 'ldp'. Seems like that was that your
>> intent based on your commit note. Instead I see two 64b loads (ldr Xn),
>> and a single 32b load (ldr Wn) for the trailing 4B. This was with
>> Linaro GCC 4.9-2015.06.
>
> GCC 5 happily emits ldp there, but indeed I couldn't figure out how to
> convince GCC 4 to do so. From a quick ferret around in the GCC Git, it
> looks like the relevant optimisations may have only gone in post-4.9.
>
Not a problem. I was just curious for my own selfish reasons.
>> Otherwise, the C cycle count looks good enough compared to the asm
>> version.
>
> Yeah, compiling as standalone functions with GCC 5 I get 19
> instructions vs. 17 for the asm, but the loop logic gets optimised out
> completely when ihl is a compile-time constant (e.g. inet_gro_receive())
>
I updated to Linaro GCC 5.3-2016.02, and saw what you described. I ran
some smoke testing against a random header generator. LGTM.
Acked-by: Luke Starrett <luke.starrett@broadcom.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-12 18:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-12 14:26 [PATCH] arm64: Implement optimised IP checksum helpers Robin Murphy
2016-05-12 15:34 ` Luke Starrett
2016-05-12 17:08 ` Robin Murphy
2016-05-12 18:32 ` Luke Starrett [this message]
2016-06-17 17:00 ` Catalin Marinas
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=49017ef4-1e96-3684-dec1-5f013724f8f2@broadcom.com \
--to=luke.starrett@broadcom.com \
--cc=bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.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