[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150217195717.GA6779@magnum.frso.rivierawaves.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:57:17 +0100
From: Karl Beldan <karl.beldan@...il.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc: 'Jiri Slaby' <jslaby@...e.cz>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Karl Beldan <karl.beldan@...ierawaves.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.12 065/122] lib/checksum.c: fix carry in
csum_tcpudp_nofold
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:04:22PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > +static inline u32 from64to32(u64 x)
> > +{
> > + /* add up 32-bit and 32-bit for 32+c bit */
> > + x = (x & 0xffffffff) + (x >> 32);
> > + /* add up carry.. */
> > + x = (x & 0xffffffff) + (x >> 32);
> > + return (u32)x;
> > +}
>
> As a matter of interest, does the compiler optimise away the
> second (x & 0xffffffff) ?
> The code could just be:
> x = (x & 0xffffffff) + (x >> 32);
> return x + (x >> 32);
>
On my side, from what I've seen so far, your version results in better
assembly, esp. with clang, but my first version
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1875407:
x += (x << 32) + (x >> 32);
return (__force __wsum)(x >> 32);
resulted in even better assembly, I just verified with gcc/clang,
x86_64/ARM and -O1,2,3.
Karl
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists