From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> To: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org> Cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org> Subject: [PATCH RFC 3/4] Arm64: further speed-up to hweight{32, 64}() Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 03:53:39 -0600 [thread overview] Message-ID: <5CF0F9A30200007800233E07@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <5CF0F8530200007800233DE0@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com> According to Linux commit e75bef2a4f ("arm64: Select ARCH_HAS_FAST_MULTIPLIER") this is a further improvement over the variant using only bitwise operations on at least some hardware, and no worse on other. Suggested-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> --- RFC: To be honest I'm not fully convinced this is a win in particular in the hweight32() case, as there's no actual shift insn which gets replaced by the multiplication. Even for hweight64() the compiler could emit better code and avoid the explicit shift by 32 (which it emits at least for me). --- a/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig +++ b/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ config ARM_32 config ARM_64 def_bool y depends on 64BIT + select HAS_FAST_MULTIPLY config ARM def_bool y _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> To: "xen-devel" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org> Cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org> Subject: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC 3/4] Arm64: further speed-up to hweight{32, 64}() Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 03:53:39 -0600 [thread overview] Message-ID: <5CF0F9A30200007800233E07@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com> (raw) Message-ID: <20190531095339.n0sdf7yr8q9-mzfeqa3poVK0y3Z-pOI4GZ9VqUDEsxM@z> (raw) In-Reply-To: <5CF0F8530200007800233DE0@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com> According to Linux commit e75bef2a4f ("arm64: Select ARCH_HAS_FAST_MULTIPLIER") this is a further improvement over the variant using only bitwise operations on at least some hardware, and no worse on other. Suggested-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> --- RFC: To be honest I'm not fully convinced this is a win in particular in the hweight32() case, as there's no actual shift insn which gets replaced by the multiplication. Even for hweight64() the compiler could emit better code and avoid the explicit shift by 32 (which it emits at least for me). --- a/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig +++ b/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ config ARM_32 config ARM_64 def_bool y depends on 64BIT + select HAS_FAST_MULTIPLY config ARM def_bool y _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-31 9:53 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-05-31 9:48 [PATCH 0/4] bitops: hweight<N>() improvements Jan Beulich 2019-05-31 9:48 ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich 2019-05-31 9:51 ` [PATCH 1/4] bitops: speed up hweight<N>() Jan Beulich 2019-05-31 9:51 ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich 2019-05-31 19:40 ` Andrew Cooper 2019-05-31 19:40 ` [Xen-devel] " Andrew Cooper 2019-06-03 7:50 ` Jan Beulich 2019-06-03 7:50 ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich 2019-06-03 10:02 ` Jan Beulich 2019-06-03 10:02 ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich 2019-06-03 10:04 ` Andrew Cooper 2019-06-03 10:04 ` [Xen-devel] " Andrew Cooper 2019-05-31 9:52 ` [PATCH 2/4] x86: further speed-up to hweight{32,64}() Jan Beulich 2019-05-31 9:52 ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich 2019-05-31 19:23 ` [PATCH 2/4] x86: further speed-up to hweight{32, 64}() Andrew Cooper 2019-05-31 19:23 ` [Xen-devel] " Andrew Cooper 2019-06-03 7:52 ` Jan Beulich 2019-06-03 7:52 ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich 2019-05-31 9:53 ` Jan Beulich [this message] 2019-05-31 9:53 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC 3/4] Arm64: " Jan Beulich 2019-06-04 16:11 ` Julien Grall 2019-06-04 17:30 ` Robin Murphy 2019-06-05 7:42 ` Jan Beulich 2019-06-05 9:24 ` Julien Grall 2019-06-05 9:59 ` Jan Beulich 2019-06-05 11:05 ` Julien Grall 2019-06-06 15:29 ` Julien Grall 2019-05-31 9:54 ` [PATCH 4/4] x86: use POPCNT for hweight<N>() when available Jan Beulich 2019-05-31 9:54 ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich 2019-05-31 20:43 ` Andrew Cooper 2019-05-31 20:43 ` [Xen-devel] " Andrew Cooper 2019-06-03 8:13 ` Jan Beulich 2019-06-03 8:13 ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich 2019-06-04 6:08 ` Jan Beulich 2019-06-04 6:08 ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich 2019-06-04 19:07 ` Andrew Cooper 2019-06-05 8:52 ` Jan Beulich
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=5CF0F9A30200007800233E07@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com \ --to=jbeulich@suse.com \ --cc=George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com \ --cc=julien.grall@arm.com \ --cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \ --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \ /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: linkBe 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.