Following a relatively recent compiler change, make use of the fact
that for non-zero input BSF and TZCNT produce the same result, and that
CPUs not knowing of TZCNT will treat the instruction as BSF (i.e.
ignore what looks like a REP prefix to them). The assumption here is
that TZCNT would never have worse performance than BSF.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
---
v2: Do this unconditionally, and change title accordingly.
---
arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- 3.6-rc6/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
+++ 3.6-rc6-x86-bsf-tzcnt/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
@@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ static int test_bit(int nr, const volati
*/
static inline unsigned long __ffs(unsigned long word)
{
- asm("bsf %1,%0"
+ asm("rep; bsf %1,%0"
: "=r" (word)
: "rm" (word));
return word;
@@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ static inline unsigned long __ffs(unsign
*/
static inline unsigned long ffz(unsigned long word)
{
- asm("bsf %1,%0"
+ asm("rep; bsf %1,%0"
: "=r" (word)
: "r" (~word));
return word;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
