[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABk29Nu67D8Wf-xEyaxZ39FsqPB9tpw8cGHPFmZrTqfM-JgYjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 14:00:18 -0800
From: Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Clement Courbet <courbet@...gle.com>,
Oleg Rombakh <olegrom@...gle.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Optimize __calc_delta.
On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 2:02 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 12:57:37PM -0800, Josh Don wrote:
> > On gcc, the asm versions of `fls` are about the same speed as the
> > builtin. On clang, the versions that use fls (fls,fls64) are more than
> > twice as slow as the builtin. This is because the way the `fls` function
> > is written, clang puts the value in memory:
> > https://godbolt.org/z/EfMbYe. This can be fixed in a separate patch.
>
> Is this because clang gets the asm constraints wrong? ISTR that
> happening before, surely the right thing is to fix clang?
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49406 filed
Powered by blists - more mailing lists