Re: [PATCH v2 03/23] x86: zero BSS using stosl instead of stosb

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>]

>>> On 22.07.15 at 10:42, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> In the case of having aligned source and destination on a 16-byte
> boundary (which we can trivially arrange), then ERMSB (to give it its
> Intel name) and rep stosl differ only in the setup cost; they still
> scale at the same rate for changes in length.
> 
> Therefore, assuming we arrange for 16-byte alignment, using rep stosl
> would appear to be a single 60ish cycle hit over using ERMSB, but would
> be substantially more efficient than using rep stosb on a non-ERMSB system.
> 
> Overall, I think 16 byte alignment and rep stosl is the best compromise.

Or leaving such code alone, with the assumption that over time the
setup cost (on a growing number of systems) outweighs the benefits
(on a shrinking set).

Jan