[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK1hOcMgM5j-EtOk2aPao6ma=M7PVyA_3U=22+8HbPu+S9GXdw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 22:44:59 +0100
From: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc: musl <musl@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86_64/memset: use "small block" code for blocks
up to 30 bytes long
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
>> Just because we don't personally see a hit from 6-cycle imul of AMD CPUs,
>> it does not mean people who do use those CPUs don't exist. Have heart...
>
> Did you test the version I attached? I think there should be at least
> 4-5 cycles between when the imul is launched and when the result is
> used, so I'm failing to see how the latency is a big deal.
Okay, I won't insist.
Your version works good. The "rep stosq" setup time is still noticeable
even when we switch to it after 126:
129 byte block: 10.37 bytes/ns
128 byte block: 10.65 bytes/ns
127 byte block: 10.58 bytes/ns
126 byte block: 18.44 bytes/ns
125 byte block: 18.30 bytes/ns
124 byte block: 18.15 bytes/ns
but I don't think we should do anything about this.
Here
lea -1(%rdx),%rcx
cmp $126,%rcx
jae 2f
you'd have a stall, since cmp needs the result of lea. why not this?
lea -1(%rdx),%rcx
cmp $127,%rdx
jae 2f
then you can even move lea to "big buf" code part
(no point doing it in "small buf" code where it is not used).
Possible bug: this check seems misplaced:
2: test %rdx,%rdx
jz 1b
it should be before byte stores:
mov %sil,(%rdi)
mov %sil,-1(%rdi,%rdx)
cmp $2,%edx
jbe 1f
otherwise memset of zero length will fill two bytes, at buf[0] and buf[-1]
"sub $8,%rcx" can be folded into lea.
Please see attached file.
Download attachment "vda1.s" of type "application/octet-stream" (1056 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
