From: Denis Vlasenko <vda@ilport.com.ua>
To: Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Chris White <chriswhite@gentoo.org>,
Margit Schubert-While <margitsw@t-online.de>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.13/14 x86 Makefile - Pentiums penalized ?
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 10:51:13 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200509141051.13197.vda@ilport.com.ua> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0509140015250.13185@montezuma.fsmlabs.com>
> > > It's documented as being suboptimal to use inc/dec due to it modifying all
> > > of eflags resulting in dependency related stalls. add/sub only modifies
> > > one bit of eflags so is more optimal. However there is a problem of
> >
> > ?! add/sub doesn't modify "only one bit in eflags", it modifies all.
> > In fact, it's dec/inc which does not modify all bits.
> > It doesn't touch 'carry' bit (IIRC).
> >
> > If inc/dec is slower on P4, it must be just another P4 quirk.
>
> You're right about the add and the number of modified bits. The documented
> part is found in the P4 optimisation manual;
>
> "The inc and dec instructions should always be avoided. Using add
> and sub instructions instead avoids data dependence and improves
> performance."
I read this as "get saner processor".
But frankly any CPU optimization manuals, not just Intel's,
go to semi-absurd suggestions like "align all data
and branch targets to $BIGNUM bytes", "do not use instruction X
(because we failed to make it work reasonably fast), use Y".
Of course next gen CPU will prefer Y over X
(for example, AMD's recomended way to do NOPs).
--
vda
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-09-14 7:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-09-13 6:04 Margit Schubert-While
2005-09-14 5:14 ` Chris White
2005-09-14 6:48 ` Zwane Mwaikambo
2005-09-14 6:59 ` Denis Vlasenko
2005-09-14 7:21 ` Zwane Mwaikambo
2005-09-14 7:51 ` Denis Vlasenko [this message]
2005-09-14 7:48 ` Margit Schubert-While
2005-09-14 7:54 ` Denis Vlasenko
2005-09-14 7:02 ` Margit Schubert-While
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=200509141051.13197.vda@ilport.com.ua \
--to=vda@ilport.com.ua \
--cc=chriswhite@gentoo.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=margitsw@t-online.de \
--cc=zwane@arm.linux.org.uk \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®