[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48327569.9070306@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 23:53:29 -0700
From: John Hubbard <john.hubbard@...il.com>
To: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
CC: Soumyadip Das Mahapatra <kernelhacker@...ualserver.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akinobu.mita@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitreversal program
Harvey Harrison wrote:
>> +static inline u32 gen_bit_rev(u32 x, u32 k)
>> {
>> - return byte_rev_table[byte];
>> + if(k & 1)
>> + x = (x & 0x55555555) << 1 | (x & 0xaaaaaaaa) >> 1;
>> + if(k & 2)
>> + x = (x & 0x33333333) << 2 | (x & 0xcccccccc) >> 2;
>> + if(k & 4)
>> + x = (x & 0x0f0f0f0f) << 4 | (x & 0xf0f0f0f0) >> 4;
>> + if(k & 8)
>> + x = (x & 0x00ff00ff) << 8 | (x & 0xff00ff00) >> 8;
>> + if(k & 16)
>> + x = (x & 0x0000ffff) << 16 | (x & 0xffff0000) >> 16;
>> +
>> + return x;
>> }
>
> Why is this better than a single 256 byte table?
>
> Harvey
>
One reason it could be better, at least in some situations, is that the
above is more likely to execute directly from the CPU's instruction
cache. The table lookup appears more efficient at first, until you
consider the memory caching hierarchy.
--John Hubbard
--
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