[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKv63uuL9+xzF7KruhYwSY68-M0=aJSvJOr5Y0vVBiX8ebqfeg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:17:29 +0100
From: Crt Mori <cmo@...exis.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>,
Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
Niklas Soderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@...natech.se>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] lib: Add strongly typed 64bit int_sqrt
On 20 December 2017 at 17:00, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 02:39:26PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
>
>> With minor changes it ought to be possible to remove most of the
>> 64bit arithmetic and shifts.
>>
>> If you care about performance then using 32 bit maths will be much faster.
>
> Some, u64 add/sub/shift isn't exactly expensive, but yes, I also
> indicated that improvement is possible. At the very least y can be made
> a u32 I suppose.
OK, is there any more easy optimizations you see?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists