From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] X86: Optimise fls(), ffs() and fls64()
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:23:46 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1003261005490.3721@i5.linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100326144241.8583.95617.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, David Howells wrote:
>
> fls(N), ffs(N) and fls64(N) can be optimised on x86/x86_64. Currently they
> perform checks against N being 0 before invoking the BSR/BSF instruction, or
> use a CMOV instruction afterwards. Either the check involves a conditional
> jump which we'd like to avoid, or a CMOV, which we'd also quite like to avoid.
>
> Instead, we can make use of the fact that BSR/BSF doesn't modify its output
> register if its input is 0. By preloading the output with -1 and incrementing
> the result, we achieve the desired result without the need for a conditional
> check.
This is totally incorrect.
Where did you find that "doesn't modify its output" thing? It's not true.
The truth is that the destination is undefined. Just read the dang Intel
documentation, it's very clearly stated right there.
If you can show otherwise, feel free. But I'm pretty sure there are
actually x86 chips out there that _do_ modify the destination. I have a
pretty strong memory of us trying this at some point, and it not working.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-26 17:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <4BACCB4E.7010108@draigBrady.com>
2010-03-26 14:42 ` David Howells
2010-03-26 14:42 ` [PATCH 2/3] Adjust the comment on get_order() to describe the size==0 case David Howells
2010-03-26 14:42 ` [PATCH 3/3] Optimise get_order() David Howells
2010-03-26 17:23 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2010-03-26 17:37 ` [PATCH 1/3] X86: Optimise fls(), ffs() and fls64() Scott Lurndal
2010-03-26 17:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-04-06 13:57 ` Jamie Lokier
2010-04-06 14:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-03-26 17:42 ` David Howells
2010-03-26 17:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-03-26 17:58 ` Ralf Baechle
2010-03-26 18:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-03-26 18:16 ` Matthew Wilcox
2010-04-06 13:30 ` Matthew Wilcox
2010-04-14 11:49 ` David Howells
2010-04-14 14:30 ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-15 8:48 ` David Howells
2010-04-15 8:49 ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-15 11:41 ` Jamie Lokier
2010-03-26 17:52 ` Matthew Wilcox
2010-04-14 13:13 ` David Howells
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=alpine.LFD.2.00.1003261005490.3721@i5.linux-foundation.org \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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
Powered by JetHome