[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHCPf3tCTUEX6oDLUndZwt=Hk+YxsKjPO96N=Zhx82+_LM66sQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 00:46:11 -0600
From: Matt Sealey <neko@...uhatsu.net>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>,
Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: Use udiv/sdiv for __aeabi_{u}idiv library functions
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> If we're running on a v7 ARM CPU, detect if the CPU supports the
> sdiv/udiv instructions and replace the signed and unsigned
> division library functions with an sdiv/udiv instruction.
>
> Running the perf messaging benchmark in pipe mode
>
> $ perf bench sched messaging -p
>
> shows a modest improvement on my v7 CPU.
>
> before:
> (5.060 + 5.960 + 5.971 + 5.643 + 6.029 + 5.665 + 6.050 + 5.870 + 6.117 + 5.683) / 10 = 5.805
>
> after:
> (4.884 + 5.549 + 5.749 + 6.001 + 5.460 + 5.103 + 5.956 + 6.112 + 5.468 + 5.093) / 10 = 5.538
>
> (5.805 - 5.538) / 5.805 = 4.6%
Even with the change to the output constraint suggested by Mans, you
get absolutely identical benchmark results? There's a lot of variance
in any case..
BTW has there been any evaluation of the penalty for the extra
branching, or the performance hit for the ARMv7-without-division
cases?
Ta,
Matt Sealey <neko@...uhatsu.net>
--
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