Hi Cassidy, On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Cassidy Burden <cburden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I changed the test module to now set the entire array to all 0/1s and > only flip a few bits. There appears to be a performance benefit, but > it's only 2-3% better (if that). If the main benefit of the original > patch was to save space then inlining definitely doesn't seem worth the > small gains in real use cases. > > find_next_zero_bit (us) > old new inline > 14440 17080 17086 > 4779 5181 5069 > 10844 12720 12746 > 9642 11312 11253 > 3858 3818 3668 > 10540 12349 12307 > 12470 14716 14697 > 5403 6002 5942 > 2282 1820 1418 > 13632 16056 15998 > 11048 13019 13030 > 6025 6790 6706 > 13255 15586 15605 > 3038 2744 2539 > 10353 12219 12239 > 10498 12251 12322 > 14767 17452 17454 > 12785 15048 15052 > 1655 1034 691 > 9924 11611 11558 > > find_next_bit (us) > old new inline > 8535 9936 9667 > 14666 17372 16880 > 2315 1799 1355 > 6578 9092 8806 > 6548 7558 7274 > 9448 11213 10821 > 3467 3497 3449 > 2719 3079 2911 > 6115 7989 7796 > 13582 16113 15643 > 4643 4946 4766 > 3406 3728 3536 > 7118 9045 8805 > 3174 3011 2701 > 13300 16780 16252 > 14285 16848 16330 > 11583 13669 13207 > 13063 15455 14989 > 12661 14955 14500 > 12068 14166 13790 > > On 7/29/2015 6:30 AM, Alexey Klimov wrote: >> >> I will re-check on another machine. It's really interesting if >> __always_inline makes things better for aarch64 and worse for x86_64. It >> will be nice if someone will check it on x86_64 too. > > > Very odd, this may be related to the other compiler optimizations Yuri > mentioned? It's better to ask Yury, i hope he can answer some day. Do you need to re-check this (with more iterations or on another machine(s))? -- Best regards, Klimov Alexey -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
