On Mon, Jun 16 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 23:07:22 +0200 Michal Nazarewicz
> wrote:
>
>> It appears that gcc is better at optimising a double call to min
>> and max rather than open coded min3 and max3. This can be observed
>> here:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Furthermore, after
Wow, back in the days where I submitted the patch I saw improvement in
the generated code (focus on number of instructions). Don't know what
happends with gcc in the meantime. Anyway, patch and analysis looks
good. So from a clean-patch perspective you get an:
Signed-off-by: Hagen Paul Pfeifer
Wow, back in the days where I submitted the patch I saw improvement in
the generated code (focus on number of instructions). Don't know what
happends with gcc in the meantime. Anyway, patch and analysis looks
good. So from a clean-patch perspective you get an:
Signed-off-by: Hagen Paul Pfeifer
On Mon, Jun 16 2014, Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 23:07:22 +0200 Michal Nazarewicz min...@mina86.com
wrote:
It appears that gcc is better at optimising a double call to min
and max rather than open coded min3 and max3. This can be observed
here:
...
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:21:20 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
> David Rientjes wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On linux-next, allyesconfig has a 0.0001% savings as a result of the
> > patch, but I'd be worried about the extra temp variable it allocates on
> > the
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
David Rientjes wrote:
>
>
> On linux-next, allyesconfig has a 0.0001% savings as a result of the
> patch, but I'd be worried about the extra temp variable it allocates on
> the stack that is evident in the mm/slab.c disassembly unless all cases
> can
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:25:15 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 16 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > > It appears that gcc is better at optimising a double call to min
> > > > and max rather than open coded min3 and max3. This
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:25:15 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes
wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > > It appears that gcc is better at optimising a double call to min
> > > and max rather than open coded min3 and max3. This can be observed
> > > here:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > >
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > It appears that gcc is better at optimising a double call to min
> > and max rather than open coded min3 and max3. This can be observed
> > here:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Furthermore, after ___make allmodconfig && make bzImage modules___ this is
> > the
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 23:07:22 +0200 Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> It appears that gcc is better at optimising a double call to min
> and max rather than open coded min3 and max3. This can be observed
> here:
>
> ...
>
> Furthermore, after ___make allmodconfig && make bzImage modules___ this is the
It appears that gcc is better at optimising a double call to min
and max rather than open coded min3 and max3. This can be observed
here:
$ cat min-max.c
#define min(x, y) ({\
typeof(x) _min1 = (x); \
typeof(y) _min2 = (y);
It appears that gcc is better at optimising a double call to min
and max rather than open coded min3 and max3. This can be observed
here:
$ cat min-max.c
#define min(x, y) ({\
typeof(x) _min1 = (x); \
typeof(y) _min2 = (y);
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 23:07:22 +0200 Michal Nazarewicz min...@mina86.com wrote:
It appears that gcc is better at optimising a double call to min
and max rather than open coded min3 and max3. This can be observed
here:
...
Furthermore, after ___make allmodconfig make bzImage modules___
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
It appears that gcc is better at optimising a double call to min
and max rather than open coded min3 and max3. This can be observed
here:
...
Furthermore, after ___make allmodconfig make bzImage modules___ this is
the
comparison of
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:25:15 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes rient...@google.com
wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
It appears that gcc is better at optimising a double call to min
and max rather than open coded min3 and max3. This can be observed
here:
...
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:25:15 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes rient...@google.com
wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
It appears that gcc is better at optimising a double call to min
and max rather than open coded min3 and max3.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
David Rientjes rient...@google.com wrote:
On linux-next, allyesconfig has a 0.0001% savings as a result of the
patch, but I'd be worried about the extra temp variable it allocates on
the stack that is evident in the mm/slab.c disassembly unless
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:21:20 -0400
Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
David Rientjes rient...@google.com wrote:
On linux-next, allyesconfig has a 0.0001% savings as a result of the
patch, but I'd be worried about the extra temp
18 matches
Mail list logo
