mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>,
	Roel Kluin <12o3l@tiscali.nl>,
	geoffrey.levand@am.sony.com, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
	cbe-oss-dev@ozlabs.org, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Fix Unlikely(x) == y
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:41:01 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200802191541.01398.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080218184027.429cf47b@laptopd505.fenrus.org>

On Tuesday 19 February 2008 13:40, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:33:53 +1100
>
> Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > Actually one thing I don't like about gcc is that I think it still
> > emits cmovs for likely/unlikely branches, which is silly (the gcc
> > developers seem to be in love with that instruction). If that goes
> > away, then branch hints may be even better.
>
> only for -Os and only if the result is smaller afaik.

What is your evidence for saying this? Because here, with the latest
kernel and recent gcc-4.3 snapshot, it spits out cmov like crazy even
when compiled with -O2.

npiggin@am:~/usr/src/linux-2.6$ grep cmov kernel/sched.s | wc -l
45

And yes it even does for hinted branches and even at -O2/3

npiggin@am:~/tests$ cat cmov.c
int test(int a, int b)
{
        if (__builtin_expect(a < b, 0))
                return a;
        else
                return b;
}
npiggin@am:~/tests$ gcc-4.3 -S -O2 cmov.c
npiggin@am:~/tests$ head -13 cmov.s
        .file   "cmov.c"
        .text
        .p2align 4,,15
..globl test
        .type   test, @function
test:
..LFB2:
        cmpl    %edi, %esi
        cmovle  %esi, %edi
        movl    %edi, %eax
        ret
..LFE2:
        .size   test, .-test

This definitely should be a branch, IMO.

> (cmov tends to be a performance loss most of the time so for -O2 and such
> it isn't used as far as I know.. it does make for nice small code however
> ;-)

It shouldn't be hard to work out the cutover point based on how
expensive cmov is, how expensive branch and branch mispredicts are,
and how often the branch is likely to be mispredicted. For an
unpredictable branch, cmov is normally quite a good win even on
modern CPUs. But gcc overuses it I think.


  reply	other threads:[~2008-02-19  4:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-02-16 16:08 Roel Kluin
2008-02-16 17:25 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-02-16 17:33   ` Willy Tarreau
2008-02-16 17:42     ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-02-16 17:58       ` Willy Tarreau
2008-02-16 18:29         ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-02-17  9:45         ` [Cbe-oss-dev] " Andrew Pinski
2008-02-17 10:08           ` Willy Tarreau
2008-02-16 18:31       ` Geoff Levand
2008-02-16 18:39         ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-02-17 11:50           ` Michael Ellerman
2008-02-18 13:56             ` Adrian Bunk
2008-02-18 14:01               ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2008-02-18 14:13                 ` Adrian Bunk
2008-02-18 21:46                   ` Michael Ellerman
2008-02-19  7:43                     ` Adrian Bunk
2008-02-18 19:22                 ` [Cbe-oss-dev] " Andrew Pinski
2008-02-18 14:27               ` David Howells
2008-02-18 14:59                 ` Roel Kluin
2008-02-18 18:11                 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2008-02-18 18:33                   ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-02-18 14:39       ` Andi Kleen
2008-02-19  2:33         ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-19  2:40           ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-02-19  4:41             ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2008-02-19  5:58           ` Willy Tarreau
2008-02-19  6:20             ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-19  9:28             ` Andi Kleen
2008-02-20  7:32               ` Willy Tarreau
2008-02-19  9:25           ` Andi Kleen
2008-02-19  9:46             ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-19  9:57               ` Andi Kleen
2008-02-19 22:25                 ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-16 18:41 ` Geoff Levand

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=200802191541.01398.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --to=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --cc=12o3l@tiscali.nl \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=arjan@infradead.org \
    --cc=cbe-oss-dev@ozlabs.org \
    --cc=geoffrey.levand@am.sony.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
    --cc=w@1wt.eu \
    /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®