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

2015-07-22 Thread Jan Beulich
On 22.07.15 at 10:42, andrew.coop...@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

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

2015-07-22 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 22/07/15 11:04, Jan Beulich wrote: On 22.07.15 at 10:42, andrew.coop...@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

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

2015-07-22 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 22/07/2015 06:18, Jan Beulich wrote: Daniel Kiper daniel.ki...@oracle.com 07/21/15 8:23 PM On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 03:37:48AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: On 20.07.15 at 16:28, daniel.ki...@oracle.com wrote: ... because of ??? Nowadays - with X86_FEATURE_ERMS - rep stosb is expected to be

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

2015-07-22 Thread Jan Beulich
On 22.07.15 at 13:22, andrew.coop...@citrix.com wrote: On 22/07/15 11:04, Jan Beulich wrote: On 22.07.15 at 10:42, andrew.coop...@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

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

2015-07-21 Thread Jan Beulich
Daniel Kiper daniel.ki...@oracle.com 07/21/15 8:23 PM On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 03:37:48AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: On 20.07.15 at 16:28, daniel.ki...@oracle.com wrote: ... because of ??? Nowadays - with X86_FEATURE_ERMS - rep stosb is expected to be faster than rep stosl. OK, I did not

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

2015-07-21 Thread Daniel Kiper
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 03:37:48AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: On 20.07.15 at 16:28, daniel.ki...@oracle.com wrote: ... because of ??? Nowadays - with X86_FEATURE_ERMS - rep stosb is expected to be faster than rep stosl. OK, I did not know about that. However, as I know this feature was

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

2015-07-21 Thread Jan Beulich
On 20.07.15 at 16:28, daniel.ki...@oracle.com wrote: ... because of ??? Nowadays - with X86_FEATURE_ERMS - rep stosb is expected to be faster than rep stosl. Jan ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

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

2015-07-20 Thread Daniel Kiper
Additionally, align relevant comment to coding style. Suggested-by: Andrew Cooper andrew.coop...@citrix.com Signed-off-by: Daniel Kiper daniel.ki...@oracle.com --- xen/arch/x86/boot/head.S |5 +++-- xen/arch/x86/xen.lds.S |2 ++ 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff