[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAObL_7HMTDE5hYBs_C2esuOExOvK1akhxvn4MCaUyK6vPTmHJg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:08:19 -0400
From: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>,
melwyn lobo <linux.melwyn@...il.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
borislav.petkov@....com
Subject: Re: x86 memcpy performance
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 03:11:40PM -0400, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>> > Well, copy_from_user... does a bunch of rep; movsq - if the SSE version
>> > shows reasonable speedup there, we might need to make those work too.
>>
>> I'm a little surprised that SSE beats fast string operations, but I
>> guess benchmarking always wins.
>
> If by fast string operations you mean X86_FEATURE_ERMS, then that's
> Intel-only and that actually would need to be benchmarked separately.
> Currently, I see speedup for large(r) buffers only vs rep; movsq. But I
> dunno about rep; movsb's enhanced rep string tricks Intel does.
I meant X86_FEATURE_REP_GOOD. (That may also be Intel-only, but it
sounds like rep;movsq might move whole cachelines on cpus at least a
few generations back.) I don't know if any ERMS cpus exist yet.
--
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