Re: [PATCH] x86: Add optimized popcnt variants

[Borislav Petkov]

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 08:06:07AM -0800

<snip>

> > +unsigned long __arch_hweight64(__u64 w)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long res = 0;
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> > +	return  __arch_hweight32((u32)w) +
> > +		__arch_hweight32((u32)(w >> 32));
> > +#else
> > +	asm (ALTERNATIVE("call __sw_hweight64", POPCNT, X86_FEATURE_POPCNT)
> > +		     : "="REG_OUT (res)
> > +		     : REG_IN (w));
> > +#endif /* CONFIG_X86_32 */
> > +
> > +	return res;
> > +}
> 
> You're still not inlining these.  They should be: there is absolutely no
> reason for code size to not inline them anymore.

Isn't better to have only those 4 locations for apply_alternatives to
patch wrt to popcnt instead of sprinkling alternatives sections around
the kernel in every callsite of hweight and its users? Or is the aim to
optimize even that "call __arch_hweightXX" away?

> > +unsigned long __arch_hweight64(__u64 w)
> > +{
> > +	return __sw_hweight64(w);
> > +}
> >  #endif /* _ASM_GENERIC_BITOPS_HWEIGHT_H_ */
> 
> and these are in a header file and *definitely* should be inlines.

Yep, done.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

-
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Operating Systems Research Center
--
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/