[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140114201042.GA13804@order.stressinduktion.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:10:42 +0100
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
dborkman@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
darkjames-ws@...kjames.pl
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] reciprocal_divide: correction/update of the algorithm
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:50:32AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 14:22 -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
>
> > I disagree with the statement that current CPU's have reasonably fast
> > dividers. A lot of embedded processors and many low-end x86 CPU's do
> > not in-fact have any hardware divider, and usually provide it using
> > microcode based emulation if they provide it at all. The AMD Jaguar
> > micro-architecture in particular comes to mind, it uses an iterative
> > division algorithm provided by the microcode that only produces 2 bits
> > of quotient per cycle, even in the best case (2 8-bit integers and an
> > integral 8-bit quotient) this still takes 4 cycles, which is twice as
> > slow as any other math operation on the same processor.
>
> I doubt you run any BPF filter with a divide instruction in it on these
> platform.
>
> Get real, do not over optimize things where it does not matter.
If I read the instruction tables correctly, we could half the latency with
reciprocal divide even on haswell.
What a pitty that the Intel Architecture Code Analyzer does not support imul
nor div instruction. :(
--
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