On Friday 22 July 2011 23:11:29 Jason wrote: > On Friday 22 July 2011 17:39:55 Jason wrote: > > On Friday 22 July 2011 12:36:21 Jason wrote: > > > On Friday 22 July 2011 12:25:42 Bill Hart wrote: > > > > That's fantastic! Thanks for all your hard work on these Jason. > > > > > > > > Bill. > > > > > > > > On 22 July 2011 11:13, jason <ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > New assembler for the nehalem mpn_addadd mpn_addsub mpn_subadd , > > > > > used to run at 3.5c/l now at 3.0c/l therefore optimal. I'll check > > > > > out how they run on the other intel chips. > > > > > > it's also an improvement on core2/penryn and nearly optimal , probably > > > just needs a shuffle. Sandybridge doesn't benefit though. > > > > > > > > Note mpn_subadd really should be called mpn_subsub , I'll change it > > > > > later. > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > > > Groups "mpir-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to > > > > > mpir-devel@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send > > > > > email to mpir-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, > > > > > visit this group at > > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en. > > > > I tried to do a mpn_addaddadd ie x=y+z+u+v but on Intel chips the > > scheduler cant really cope with it , also with 5 pointer you get so many > > L1 data cache bank conflicts that the code runs at different speeds for > > the relative differences between the pointers mod 64 . But if we are > > many using it for toom then we could perhaps guarantee the relative > > differences. On the AMD chips I have a strange problem with my optimizer > > where it reports silly numbers for some functions ie sumdiff addadd , no > > idea why it's happening , I even reverted to an earier svn version where > > I found the original fast addadd code , but it still gave silly figures > > , but karaadd was fine ? > > > > Jason > > New mpn_sumdiff for the nehalem , didn't have before so we can say it would > of run at 4.0c/w but now is 3.6c/w (lost a lttle bit with the feedin) , > this code also benefits the core2 but not penryn or sandybridge , probably > just another trivial shuffle needed :) > > Jason
I've shuffled the sumdiff for the core2 it's a bit faster at 3.5c/w Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mpir-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to mpir-devel@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mpir-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en.
