On 12/16/2010 03:13 PM, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 12/15/2010 08:00 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:15:09 +0200
>>>
>>>> I agree that the byte-compare or long-compare should give you very close
>>>> results in modern pipeline CPUs. But surly 12 increments-and-test should
>>>> show up against 3 (or even 2). I would say it must be a better plan.
>>>
>>> For strings of these lengths the setup code necessary to initialize
>>> the inner loop and the tail code to handle the sub-word ending cases
>>> eliminate whatever gains there are.
>>>
>>
>> You miss understood me. I'm saying that we know the beggining of the
>> string is aligned and Nick offered to pad the last long, so surly
>> a shift by 2 (or 3) + the reduction of the 12 dec-and-test to 3
>> should give you an optimization?
>
> Masking is still going to take a bit more code, but perhaps. We're talking
> a handful of cycles here, so if you add a branch mispredict, or icache
> miss, you'll kill your savings.
>
> This is what I've got at the moment, which adds only 8 bytes over the
> rep cmp variant, in the __d_lookup_rcu function.
>
> static inline int dentry_memcmp(const unsigned char *cs,
> const unsigned char *ct, size_t count)
> {
> int ret;
> do {
> ret = (*cs != *ct);
> if (ret)
> break;
> cs++;
> ct++;
> count--;
> } while (count);
> return ret;
> }
>
> Now if we pad and zero fill the dentry name, then we can compare with
> the path string, but we still have to mask that guy (unfortunately, I
> didn't consider that earlier) so it's not trivial and adds quite a bit of code
> size and branches:
>
> static inline int dentry_memcmp_long(const unsigned char *cs,
> const unsigned char *ct, ssize_t count)
> {
> const unsigned long *ls = (const unsigned long *)cs;
> const unsigned long *lt = (const unsigned long *)ct;
>
> int ret;
> do {
> unsigned long t = *lt;
> unsigned long s = *ls;
> int shift = 0;
>
> if (count < 8)
> shift = (8 - count) * 8;
> t = t & (0xffffffffffffffff >> shift);
> ret = (s != t);
> if (ret)
> break;
> ls++;
> lt++;
> count-=8;
> } while (count > 0);
> return ret;
> }
>
> Something like this should work on little endian. You'd have to coax gcc to
> generate a cmov to get rid of that branch I think, because it won't be
> predictable for small string lengths. But then you have to think about
> icache...
static inline int dentry_memcmp_long(const unsigned char *cs,
const unsigned char *ct, ssize_t count)
{
int ret;
const unsigned long *ls = (const unsigned long *)cs;
const unsigned long *lt = (const unsigned long *)ct;
while (count > 8) {
ret = (*cs != *ct);
if (ret)
break;
cs++;
ct++;
count-=8;
}
if (count) {
unsigned long t = *ct & ((0xffffffffffffffff >> ((8 - count) * 8))
ret = (*cs != t)
}
return ret;
}
Same as yours but just to avoid the branch inside the loop
and slightly smaller code.
BTW: On some ARCHs ++foo is faster than foo++
and Also, is there a reason not to write the above loop as:
while(c-- && (ret = (*cs++ != *ct++)))
;
Thanks
Boaz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
