[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190723200448.GA10504@avx2>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 23:04:48 +0300
From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com,
michal.lkml@...kovi.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] x86_64, -march=native: POPCNT support
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 09:20:43AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:15:39AM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:12:10PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:27:20PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > > > Detect POPCNT instruction support and inline hweigth*() functions
> > > > if it is supported by CPU.
> > > >
> > > > Detect POPCNT at boot time and conditionally refuse to boot.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/x86/include/asm/arch_hweight.h | 24 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > arch/x86/include/asm/segment.h | 1 +
> > > > arch/x86/kernel/verify_cpu.S | 8 +++++++
> > > > arch/x86/lib/Makefile | 5 +++-
> > > > .../drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c | 2 +-
> > > > drivers/misc/sgi-gru/grumain.c | 2 +-
> > > > fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c | 4 ++--
> > > > include/linux/bitops.h | 2 ++
> > > > lib/Makefile | 2 ++
> > > > scripts/kconfig/cpuid.c | 7 ++++++
> > > > scripts/march-native.sh | 2 ++
> > > > 11 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > *WHY* ?
> > >
> > > AFAICT this just adds lines and complexity and wins aboslutely nothing.
> >
> > If CPU is know to have POPCNT, it doesn't make sense to go through RDI.
> > Additionally some CPUs (still?) have fake dependency on the destination,
> > so "popcnt rax, rdi" is suboptimal.
>
> You completely forgot to mention any of that in your Changelog, also I
> doubt you can find code where this makes a measurable difference. IOW, I
> still doubt it makes any kind of sense.
It saves some space, although not much. gcc likes to use 64-bit version
even where 32-bit version should suffice.
Regardless I found some problems with POPCNT patch, so hold off the
series.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists