Re: [PATCH RFC] [X86] performance improvement for memcpy_64.S byfast string.

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 11/12/2009 11:33 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>> Ling, if you are interested, could you send a user-space test-app to 
>>> this thread that everyone could just compile and run on various older 
>>> boxes, to gather a performance profile of hand-coded versus string ops 
>>> performance?
>>>
>>> ( And i think we can make a judgement based on cache-hot performance
>>>   alone - if then the strings ops will perform comparatively better in
>>>   cache-cold scenarios, so the cache-hot numbers would be a conservative
>>>   estimate. )
>>
>> Ugh, really? I'd expect cache-cold performance to be not helped at all 
>> (memory bandwidth limit) and you'll get slow down from additional 
>> i-cache misses...
> 
> That's my point - the new code is shorter, which will run comparatively 
> faster in a cache-cold environment.
> 

memcpy_c by itself is by far the shortest variant, of course.

The question is if it makes sense to use the long variants for short (<
1024 bytes) copies.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/