Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitreversal program

[John Hubbard]

Harvey Harrison wrote:

> > +static inline u32 gen_bit_rev(u32 x, u32 k)
> >   {
> > -       return byte_rev_table[byte];
> > +       if(k & 1)
> > +               x = (x & 0x55555555) << 1 | (x & 0xaaaaaaaa) >> 1;
> > +       if(k & 2)
> > +               x = (x & 0x33333333) << 2 | (x & 0xcccccccc) >> 2;
> > +       if(k & 4)
> > +               x = (x & 0x0f0f0f0f) << 4 | (x & 0xf0f0f0f0) >> 4;
> > +       if(k & 8)
> > +               x = (x & 0x00ff00ff) << 8 | (x & 0xff00ff00) >> 8;
> > +       if(k & 16)
> > +               x = (x & 0x0000ffff) << 16 | (x & 0xffff0000) >> 16;
> > +
> > +       return x;
> >   }
>
> Why is this better than a single 256 byte table?
>
> Harvey

One reason it could be better, at least in some situations, is that the 
above is more likely to execute directly from the CPU's instruction 
cache. The table lookup appears more efficient at first, until you 
consider the memory caching hierarchy.

--John Hubbard
--
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/