[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160915023644.GD15995@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 22:36:45 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
Cc: "j-core@...ore.org" <j-core@...ore.org>, musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: [J-core] Aligned copies and cacheline conflicts?
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 07:58:52PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 09/14/2016 07:34 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > I could put a fork of memcpy.c in sh/memcpy.c and work on it there and
> > only merge it back to the shared one if others test it on other archs
> > and find it beneficial (or at least not harmful).
>
> Both musl and the kernel need it. And yes at the moment it seems
> architecture-specific, but it's a _big_ performance difference...
I actually think it's justifiable to have in the generic C memcpy,
from a standpoint that the generic C shouldn't assume an N-way (N>1,
i.e. not direct mapped) associative cache. Just need to make sure
changing it doesn't make gcc do something utterly idiotic for other
archs, I guess. I'll take a look at this.
Rich
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.
