All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: randy.dunlap@oracle.com, linux-next@vger.kernel.org,
	general@lists.openfabrics.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] [PATCH 2.6.30] RDMA/cxgb3: Remove modulo math.
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:20:39 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ada4oz1a188.fsf@cisco.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090210.172347.189515015.davem@davemloft.net> (David Miller's message of "Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:23:47 -0800 (PST)")

 > Must be compiler and platform specific because with gcc-4.1.3 on
 > sparc with -O2, for the test program:
 > 
 > unsigned long page_size[4];
 > 
 > int main(int argc)
 > {
 >         unsigned long long x = argc;
 > 
 >         return x % (1UL << (12 + page_size[argc]));
 > }
 > 
 > I get a call to __umoddi3:

You're not testing the same thing.  The original code was:

		wqe->recv.sgl[i].to = cpu_to_be64(((u32) wr->sg_list[i].addr) %
				(1UL << (12 + page_size[i])));

and it's not that easy to see with all the parentheses, but the
expression being done is (u32) % (unsigned long).  So rather than
unsigned long long in your program, you should have just done unsigned
(u32 is unsigned int on all Linux architectures).  In that case gcc does
not generate a call to any library function in all the versions I have
handy, although gcc 4.1 does do a div instead of an and.  (And I don't
think any 32-bit architectures require a library function for (unsigned)
% (unsigned), so the code should be OK)

Your example shows that gcc is missing a strength reduction opportunity
in not handling (u64) % (unsigned long) on 32 bit architectures, but I
guess it is a more difficult optimization to do, since gcc has to know
that it can simply zero the top 32 bits.

 - R.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: randy.dunlap@oracle.com, linux-next@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, general@lists.openfabrics.org
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] [PATCH 2.6.30] RDMA/cxgb3: Remove modulo math.
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:20:39 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ada4oz1a188.fsf@cisco.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090210.172347.189515015.davem@davemloft.net> (David Miller's message of "Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:23:47 -0800 (PST)")

 > Must be compiler and platform specific because with gcc-4.1.3 on
 > sparc with -O2, for the test program:
 > 
 > unsigned long page_size[4];
 > 
 > int main(int argc)
 > {
 >         unsigned long long x = argc;
 > 
 >         return x % (1UL << (12 + page_size[argc]));
 > }
 > 
 > I get a call to __umoddi3:

You're not testing the same thing.  The original code was:

		wqe->recv.sgl[i].to = cpu_to_be64(((u32) wr->sg_list[i].addr) %
				(1UL << (12 + page_size[i])));

and it's not that easy to see with all the parentheses, but the
expression being done is (u32) % (unsigned long).  So rather than
unsigned long long in your program, you should have just done unsigned
(u32 is unsigned int on all Linux architectures).  In that case gcc does
not generate a call to any library function in all the versions I have
handy, although gcc 4.1 does do a div instead of an and.  (And I don't
think any 32-bit architectures require a library function for (unsigned)
% (unsigned), so the code should be OK)

Your example shows that gcc is missing a strength reduction opportunity
in not handling (u64) % (unsigned long) on 32 bit architectures, but I
guess it is a more difficult optimization to do, since gcc has to know
that it can simply zero the top 32 bits.

 - R.

  reply	other threads:[~2009-02-11  7:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-02-10 18:44 [PATCH 2.6.30] RDMA/cxgb3: Remove modulo math Steve Wise
2009-02-10 18:44 ` [ofa-general] " Steve Wise
2009-02-10 19:04 ` Randy Dunlap
2009-02-10 19:04   ` [ofa-general] " Randy Dunlap
2009-02-10 19:10   ` Steve Wise
2009-02-10 19:10     ` [ofa-general] " Steve Wise
2009-02-10 19:12     ` Randy Dunlap
2009-02-11  0:38 ` [ofa-general] " Roland Dreier
2009-02-11  1:03   ` Steve Wise
2009-02-11  1:07     ` David Miller
2009-02-11  1:18       ` Roland Dreier
2009-02-11  1:18         ` Roland Dreier
2009-02-11  1:23         ` David Miller
2009-02-11  1:23           ` David Miller
2009-02-11  7:20           ` Roland Dreier [this message]
2009-02-11  7:20             ` Roland Dreier
2009-02-11  8:00             ` David Miller
2009-02-11  1:03   ` Steve Wise
2009-02-11 15:44   ` Steve Wise
2009-02-11 18:12     ` Roland Dreier
2009-02-11 18:32       ` Steve Wise
2009-02-11 18:36         ` Roland Dreier
2009-02-11 18:44           ` Steve Wise

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=ada4oz1a188.fsf@cisco.com \
    --to=rdreier@cisco.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=general@lists.openfabrics.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=randy.dunlap@oracle.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.