Re: Big git diff speedup by avoiding x86 "fast string" memcmp

[J. R. Okajima]

Nick Piggin:
> Well, let's see what turns up. We certainly can try the long *
> approach. I suspect on architectures where byte loads are
> very slow, gcc will block the loop into larger loads, so it should
> be no worse than a normal memcmp call, but if we do explicit
> padding we can avoid all the problems associated with tail
> handling.

Thank you for your reply.
But unfortunately I am afraid that I cannot understand what you wrote
clearly due to my poor English. What I understood is,
- I suggested 'long *' approach
- You wrote "not bad and possible, but may not be worth"
- I agreed "the approach may not be effective"
And you gave deeper consideration, but the result is unchaged which
means "'long *' approach may not be worth". Am I right?


> In short, I think the change should be suitable for all x86 CPUs,
> but I would like to hear more opinions or see numbers for other
> cores.

I'd like to hear from other x86 experts too.
Also I noticed that memcmp for x86_32 is defined as __builtin_memcmp
(for x86_64 is "rep cmp"). Why does x86_64 doesn't use __builtin_memcmp?
Is it really worse?


J. R. Okajima
--
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/