On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:55:18 +0800, ykzhao wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 15:16 +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:48:25 +0200 (cest), Andi Kleen wrote:
When the dest and the src do overlap and the memory area is large, memmove
of
x86_64 is very inefficient, and it led
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 15:16 +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:48:25 +0200 (cest), Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> When the dest and the src do overlap and the memory area is large, memmove
> >> of
> >> x86_64 is very inefficient, and it led to bad performance, such as btrfs's
> >> file
> >> de
> void *memmove(void *dest, const void *src, size_t count)
> {
> if (dest < src) {
> return memcpy(dest, src, count);
> } else {
> - char *p = dest + count;
> - const char *s = src + count;
> - while (count--)
> - *
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:47:59 +0800
, Miao Xie wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:11:41 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:29:32 +0800
Miao Xie wrote:
Ok was a very broken patch. Sorry should have really done some more
work on it. Anyways hopefully the corrected version is good for
test
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:11:41 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:29:32 +0800
Miao Xie wrote:
Ok was a very broken patch. Sorry should have really done some more
work on it. Anyways hopefully the corrected version is good for
testing.
-Andi
title: x86_64/lib: improve the perform
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:29:32 +0800
Miao Xie wrote:
Ok was a very broken patch. Sorry should have really done some more
work on it. Anyways hopefully the corrected version is good for
testing.
-Andi
--
a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send th
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:40:08 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:16:31 +0800
Miao Xie wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:48:25 +0200 (cest), Andi Kleen wrote:
When the dest and the src do overlap and the memory area is large,
memmove of
x86_64 is very inefficient, and it led to bad per
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:16:31 +0800
Miao Xie wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:48:25 +0200 (cest), Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> When the dest and the src do overlap and the memory area is large,
> >> memmove of
> >> x86_64 is very inefficient, and it led to bad performance, such as
> >> btrfs's file
> >>
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:48:25 +0200 (cest), Andi Kleen wrote:
When the dest and the src do overlap and the memory area is large, memmove
of
x86_64 is very inefficient, and it led to bad performance, such as btrfs's
file
deletion performance. This patch improved the performance of memmove on
x86_64
> When the dest and the src do overlap and the memory area is large, memmove
> of
> x86_64 is very inefficient, and it led to bad performance, such as btrfs's
> file
> deletion performance. This patch improved the performance of memmove on
> x86_64
> by using __memcpy_bwd() instead of byte copy whe
When the dest and the src do overlap and the memory area is large, memmove of
x86_64 is very inefficient, and it led to bad performance, such as btrfs's file
deletion performance. This patch improved the performance of memmove on x86_64
by using __memcpy_bwd() instead of byte copy when doing large
11 matches
Mail list logo
