> On Aug 21, 2015, at 14:41, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 20/08/15 14:30, yalin wang wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 20, 2015, at 19:02, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/08/15 13:12, yalin wang wrote:
>>>> This change to use swab32(bitrev32()) to implement reverse_order()
>>>> function, have better performance on some platforms.
>>>
>>> Which platforms? Presuming you tested this, roughly how much better
>>> performance? If you didn't, how do you know it's faster?
>>
>> i investigate on arm64 platforms:
>
> Ok. So is any arm64 platform actually using these devices? If these
> devices are mostly used by 32bit x86 platforms, optimizing them for
> arm64 doesn't make any sense.
>
> Possibly the patches are still good for x86 also, but that needs to be
> proven.
>
not exactly, because x86_64 don’t have hardware instruction to do rbit OP,
i compile by test :
use the patch:
use swab32(bitrev32()):
2775: 0f b6 d0 movzbl %al,%edx
2778: 0f b6 c4 movzbl %ah,%eax
277b: 0f b6 92 00 00 00 00 movzbl 0x0(%rdx),%edx
2782: 0f b6 80 00 00 00 00 movzbl 0x0(%rax),%eax
2789: c1 e2 08 shl $0x8,%edx
278c: 09 d0 or %edx,%eax
278e: 0f b6 d5 movzbl %ch,%edx
2791: 0f b6 c9 movzbl %cl,%ecx
2794: 0f b6 89 00 00 00 00 movzbl 0x0(%rcx),%ecx
279b: 0f b6 92 00 00 00 00 movzbl 0x0(%rdx),%edx
27a2: 0f b7 c0 movzwl %ax,%eax
27a5: c1 e1 08 shl $0x8,%ecx
27a8: 09 ca or %ecx,%edx
27aa: c1 e2 10 shl $0x10,%edx
27ad: 09 d0 or %edx,%eax
27af: 45 85 ff test %r15d,%r15d
27b2: 0f c8 bswap %eax
4 memory access instructions,
without the patch:
use
do { \
- u8 *a = (u8 *)(l); \
- a[0] = bitrev8(a[0]); \
- a[1] = bitrev8(a[1]); \
- a[2] = bitrev8(a[2]); \
- a[3] = bitrev8(a[3]); \
-} while(0)
277b: 45 0f b6 80 00 00 00 movzbl 0x0(%r8),%r8d
2782: 00
2783: c1 ee 10 shr $0x10,%esi
2786: 89 f2 mov %esi,%edx
2788: 0f b6 f4 movzbl %ah,%esi
278b: c1 e8 18 shr $0x18,%eax
278e: 0f b6 d2 movzbl %dl,%edx
2791: 48 98 cltq
2793: 45 85 ed test %r13d,%r13d
2796: 0f b6 92 00 00 00 00 movzbl 0x0(%rdx),%edx
279d: 0f b6 80 00 00 00 00 movzbl 0x0(%rax),%eax
27a4: 44 88 85 54 ff ff ff mov %r8b,-0xac(%rbp)
27ab: 44 0f b6 86 00 00 00 movzbl 0x0(%rsi),%r8d
27b2: 00
27b3: 88 95 56 ff ff ff mov %dl,-0xaa(%rbp)
27b9: 88 85 57 ff ff ff mov %al,-0xa9(%rbp)
27bf: 44 88 85 55 ff ff ff mov %r8b,-0xab(%rbp)
6 memory access instructions, and generate more code that the patch .
because the original code use byte access 4 times , i don’t
think have better performance. :)
Thanks
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fbdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
