[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150806043938.GE18479@gate.crashing.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 23:39:38 -0500
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
Cc: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] powerpc32: optimise csum_partial() loop
On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 09:31:41PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-08-05 at 19:30 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 03:29:35PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > > On the 8xx, load latency is 2 cycles and taking branches also takes
> > > 2 cycles. So let's unroll the loop.
> >
> > This is not true for most other 32-bit PowerPC; this patch makes
> > performance worse on e.g. 6xx/7xx/7xxx. Let's not!
>
> Chips with a load latency greater than 2 cycles should also benefit from the
> unrolling. Have you benchmarked this somewhere and seen it reduce
> performance? Do you know of any 32-bit PPC chips with a load latency less
> than 2 cycles?
The original loop was already optimal, as the comment said. The new
code adds extra instructions and a mispredicted branch. You also
might get less overlap between the loads and adde (I didn't check
if there is any originally): those instructions are no longer
interleaved.
I think it is a stupid idea to optimise code for all 32-bit PowerPC
CPUs based on solely what is best for a particularly simple, slow
implementation; and that is what this patch is doing.
Segher
--
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