On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 10:13 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 5/29/20 8:11 AM, Kaitao Cheng wrote:
> > There is a function named ilog2() exist which can replace blksize.
> > The generated code will be shorter and more efficient on some
> > architecture, such as arm64. And ilog2() can be optimized according
> > to different architecture.
>
> When you posted this last time, I said:
>
> "I like the simplification, but do you have any results to back up
> that claim? Is the generated code shorter? Runs faster?"
>
Hi Jens Axboe:
I did a test on ARM64.
unsigned int ckt_blksize(int size)
{
return blksize_bits(size);
}
unsigned int ckt_ilog2(int size)
{
return ilog2(size);
}
When I compiled it into assembly code, I got the following result,
0000000000000088 <ckt_blksize>:
88: 2a0003e8 mov w8, w0
8c: 321d03e0 orr w0, wzr, #0x8
90: 11000400 add w0, w0, #0x1
94: 7108051f cmp w8, #0x201
98: 53017d08 lsr w8, w8, #1
9c: 54ffffa8 b.hi 90 <ckt_blksize+0x8>
a0: d65f03c0 ret
a4: d503201f nop
00000000000000a8 <ckt_ilog2>:
a8: 320013e8 orr w8, wzr, #0x1f
ac: 5ac01009 clz w9, w0
b0: 4b090108 sub w8, w8, w9
b4: 7100001f cmp w0, #0x0
b8: 5a9f1100 csinv w0, w8, wzr, ne
bc: d65f03c0 ret
The generated code of ilog2 is shorter , and runs faster
> which you handily ignored, yet sending out a new version. I'm not
> going to apply this without justification, your commit message is
> handwavy at best.
>
Do I need to write the test content into commit message?
--
Yours,
Kaitao Cheng
