[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703060853050.5963@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 09:09:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
cc: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch v2] epoll use a single inode ...
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> That's true for *any* sprintf(), though. sprintf() converts all its arguments
> to 64 bits.
Well, it very much uses "do_div()", so that it can do a
64 / 32 -> (div64,mod32)
divide, which is often faster than a full 64:64 divide.
> However, this could be optimized. I think right now sprintf() uses a generic
> divide-by-base, but a divide by 8 and 16 can of course be handled with a
> shift, and divide by 10 can be replaced with a multiplication by
> 0x1999999999999999ULL on most architectures.
Nope. You need both the result of the division *and* the remainder, and
you can't do that with a single multiply.
Also, with modern hardware, divides are usually fairly cheap, with early
exit logic, so that the common case of small integers is fairly cheap.
Yeah, generating a full 64-bit number printout is still expensive, of
course (both because you need to do many divides *and* because only the
last few divides will be able to do any appreciable early exit logic.
Anyway, I think a full integer divide on Core 2 is something like 22
cycles. Yes, the multiply is much fasster (at 4 cycles), but I think that
22 cycles is actually worst-case.
Somebody who has a benchmark could try.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists