On 1/14/20 1:49 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 1:37 PM Vineet Gupta <vineet.gup...@synopsys.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/14/20 12:42 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>
>>> What's wrong with the generic version on little-endian? Any
>>> chance you can find a way to make it work as well for you as
>>> this copy?
>>
>> find_zero() by default doesn't use pop count instructions.
>
> Don't you think the generic find_zero() is likely just as fast as the
> pop count instruction? On 32-bit, I think it's like a shift and a mask
> and a couple of additions.
You are right that in grand scheme things it may be less than noise.
ARC pop count version
# bits = (bits - 1) & ~bits;
# return bits >> 7;
sub r0,r6,1
bic r6,r0,r6
lsr r0,r6,7
# return fls(mask) >> 3;
fls.f r0, r0
add.nz r0, r0, 1
asr r5,r0,3
j_s.d [blink]
Generic version
# bits = (bits - 1) & ~bits;
# return bits >> 7;
sub r5,r6,1
bic r6,r5,r6
lsr r5,r6,7
# unsigned long a = (0x0ff0001+mask) >> 23;
# return a & mask;
add r0,r5,0x0ff0001 <-- this is 8 byte instruction though
lsr_s r0,r0,23
and r5,r5,r0
j_s.d [blink]
But its the usual itch/inclination of arch people to try and use the specific
instruction if available.
>
> The 64-bit case has a multiply that is likely expensive unless you
> have a good multiplication unit (but what 64-bit architecture
> doesn't?), but the generic 32-bit LE code should already be pretty
> close to optimal, and it might not be worth it to worry about it.
>
> (The big-endian case is very different, and architectures really can
> do much better. But LE allows for bit tricks using the carry chain)
-Vineet
_______________________________________________
linux-snps-arc mailing list
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
