Prev: lib: vsprintf: optimised put_dec_trunc() and put_dec_full()
Next: perf, x86: try to handle unknown nmis with running perfctrs
From: Michał Nazarewicz on 10 Aug 2010 03:50
> On Sunday 08 August 2010 21:29, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
>> Compared to previous version: the code is used only if:
>> 1. if long long is 64-bit (ie. ULLONG_MAX == 2**64-1), and
>> 2. user did not select optimisation for size with Kconfig.

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 06:15:52 +0200, Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> I measured the size and it does not seem to make sense
> to exclude it on -Os. On x86:
>
> put_dec_full change: 0x93 -> 0x47 bytes
> put_dec change: 0x12c -> 0x137 bytes
>
> IOW, there is net code size reduction (compared to current kernel,
> it may be a slight growth compared to patch 1).
>
> So, please use the optimized code even for CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE.

Will do.

>> Here are the results (normalised to the fastest/smallest):
>> : ARM Atom
>> -- Speed ----------------------------------
>> orig_put_dec : 9.333822 2.083110 Original
>> mod1_put_dec : 9.282045 1.904564
>> mod2_put_dec : 9.260409 1.910302
>> mod3_put_dec : 9.320053 1.905689 Proposed by previous patch
>> mod4_put_dec : 9.297146 1.933971
>> mod5_put_dec : 13.034318 2.434942
>> mod6_put_dec : 1.000000 1.000000 Proposed by this patch
>> mod7_put_dec : 1.009574 1.014147
>> mod8_put_dec : 7.226004 1.953460
>> -- Size -----------------------------------
>> orig_put_dec : 1.000000 1.000000 Original
>> mod1_put_dec : 1.000000 1.000000
>> mod2_put_dec : 1.361111 1.403226
>> mod3_put_dec : 1.000000 1.000000 Proposed by previous patch
>> mod4_put_dec : 1.361111 1.403226
>> mod5_put_dec : 1.000000 1.000000
>> mod6_put_dec : 2.555556 3.508065 Proposed by this patch
>> mod7_put_dec : 2.833333 3.911290
>> mod8_put_dec : 2.027778 2.258065
>
> I believe these are old results? Size growth is just too big.

Hmm... I think those are new results, but I might have messed something
up. I'll redo them.

>> +#if BITS_PER_LONG != 32 || defined CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE || \
>> + ULLONG_MAX != 18446744073709551615ULL
>
> I think it's better to say "if BITS_PER_LONG > 32 and ULLONG_MAX > 2^64-1",
> since it expresses your intent better. Also, add comments explaining
> what case you optimize for:

Will do.

>> +static noinline_for_stack
>> +char *put_dec(char *buf, unsigned long long n)
>> +{
>> + uint32_t d3, d2, d1, q;
>> +
>> + if (!n) {
>> + *buf++ = '0';
>> + return buf;
>> + }

> You may as well use the above shortcut for n <= 9, not only for 0.

Will do.

>> + buf = put_dec_full4(buf, q % 10000);
>> + q = q / 10000;
>> +
>> + d1 = q + 7671 * d3 + 9496 * d2 + 6 * d1;
>> + buf = put_dec_full4(buf, d1 % 10000);
>> + q = d1 / 10000;
>
> I experimented with moving division up, before put_dec_full4:
> q = d1 / 10000;
> buf = put_dec_full4(buf, d1 % 10000);
> but gcc appears to be smart emough to do this transformation
> itself. But you may still do it for older (dumber) gcc's.

I wasn't sure where would be a better place to put this line. I'll
follow your advice on this one then.

--
Best regards, _ _
| Humble Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o
| Computer Science, Michał "mina86" Nazarewicz (o o)
+----[mina86*mina86.com]---[mina86*jabber.org]----ooO--(_)--Ooo--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: lib: vsprintf: optimised put_dec_trunc() and put_dec_full()
Next: perf, x86: try to handle unknown nmis with running perfctrs