[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cea4f99c8162405ca4337d20ec0b85d4@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 22:27:58 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Jakub Kicinski' <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: 'Alexander Lobakin' <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>,
'Wan Jiabing' <wanjiabing@...o.com>,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
"Tony Nguyen" <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] ice: use min_t() to make code cleaner in ice_gnss
From: Jakub Kicinski
> Sent: 22 March 2022 18:28
>
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 18:12:08 +0000 David Laight wrote:
> > > > Oh FFS why is that u16?
> > > > Don't do arithmetic on anything smaller than 'int'
> > >
> > > Any reasoning? I don't say it's good or bad, just want to hear your
> > > arguments (disasms, perf and object code measurements) etc.
> >
> > Look at the object code on anything except x86.
> > The compiler has to add instruction to mask the value
> > (which is in a full sized register) down to 16 bits
> > after every arithmetic operation.
>
> Isn't it also slower on some modern x86 CPUs?
> I could have sworn someone mentioned that in the past.
Not in the cpu clock count tables I've read.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists