[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTiksAkqrMtVDgxhm5s+jqMaKoUhbTaWsXfKJ9QOy@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 01:15:44 +1100
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, hooanon05@...oo.co.jp,
npiggin@...nel.dk, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Big git diff speedup by avoiding x86 "fast string" memcmp
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com> wrote:
> On 12/16/2010 03:13 PM, Nick Piggin wrote:
> static inline int dentry_memcmp_long(const unsigned char *cs,
> const unsigned char *ct, ssize_t count)
> {
> int ret;
> const unsigned long *ls = (const unsigned long *)cs;
> const unsigned long *lt = (const unsigned long *)ct;
>
> while (count > 8) {
> ret = (*cs != *ct);
> if (ret)
> break;
> cs++;
> ct++;
> count-=8;
> }
> if (count) {
> unsigned long t = *ct & ((0xffffffffffffffff >> ((8 - count) * 8))
> ret = (*cs != t)
> }
>
> return ret;
> }
>
> Same as yours but just to avoid the branch inside the loop
> and slightly smaller code.
That's true, it should make the branch more predictable too. Well,
maybe. I'm going to leave it as-is for now, but I would welcome any
test results or ideas for improvements.
> BTW: On some ARCHs ++foo is faster than foo++
> and Also, is there a reason not to write the above loop as:
>
> while(c-- && (ret = (*cs++ != *ct++)))
> ;
gcc should turn it into the same thing these days. I prefer avoiding
expressions with side effects in control statements (other than a
simple counter).
Thanks,
Nick
--
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