On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 09:40:23AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Karl Beldan
> > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:04:22PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > > +static inline u32 from64to32(u64 x)
> > > > +{
> > > > + /* add up 32-bit and 32-bit for 32+c bit */
> > > > + x = (x & 0xffffffff) + (x >> 32);
> > > > + /* add up carry.. */
> > > > + x = (x & 0xffffffff) + (x >> 32);
> > > > + return (u32)x;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > As a matter of interest, does the compiler optimise away the
> > > second (x & 0xffffffff) ?
> > > The code could just be:
> > > x = (x & 0xffffffff) + (x >> 32);
> > > return x + (x >> 32);
> > >
> >
> > On my side, from what I've seen so far, your version results in better
> > assembly, esp. with clang, but my first version
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1875407:
> > x += (x << 32) + (x >> 32);
> > return (__force __wsum)(x >> 32);
> > resulted in even better assembly, I just verified with gcc/clang,
> > x86_64/ARM and -O1,2,3.
>
> The latter looks to have a shorter dependency chain as well.
> Although I'd definitely include a comment saying that it is equivalent
> to the two lines in the current patch.
>
> Does either compiler manage to use a rotate for the two shifts?
> Using '(x << 32) | (x >> 32)' might convince it to do so.
> That would reduce it to three 'real' instructions and a register rename.
>
gcc and clang rotate for tile (just checked gcc) and x86_64, not for arm
(and IMHO rightly so).
Both '|' and '+' yielded the same asm for those 3 archs.
Karl
--
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/
