Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1400160 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-12 17:40 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-05-13 11:10 +0200 |
| Articles | 4 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
[PATCH] powerpc: Discard ffs() function and use builtin_ffs instead Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> - 2016-05-12 17:40 +0200
Re: powerpc: Discard ffs() function and use builtin_ffs instead Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2016-05-13 08:20 +0200
Re: powerpc: Discard ffs() function and use builtin_ffs instead Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> - 2016-05-13 09:00 +0200
Re: powerpc: Discard ffs() function and use builtin_ffs instead Gabriel Paubert <paubert@iram.es> - 2016-05-13 11:10 +0200
| From | Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-12 17:40 +0200 |
| Subject | [PATCH] powerpc: Discard ffs() function and use builtin_ffs instead |
| Message-ID | <ry0St-l8-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
With the ffs() function as defined in arch/powerpc/include/asm/bitops.h
GCC will not optimise the code in case of constant parameter, as shown
by the small exemple below.
int ffs_test(void)
{
return 4 << ffs(31);
}
c0012334 <ffs_test>:
c0012334: 39 20 00 01 li r9,1
c0012338: 38 60 00 04 li r3,4
c001233c: 7d 29 00 34 cntlzw r9,r9
c0012340: 21 29 00 20 subfic r9,r9,32
c0012344: 7c 63 48 30 slw r3,r3,r9
c0012348: 4e 80 00 20 blr
With this patch, the same function will compile as follows:
c0012334 <ffs_test>:
c0012334: 38 60 00 08 li r3,8
c0012338: 4e 80 00 20 blr
Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/bitops.h | 11 +----------
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bitops.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bitops.h
index 59abc62..75e3ebb 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bitops.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bitops.h
@@ -218,16 +218,7 @@ static __inline__ unsigned long __ffs(unsigned long x)
return __ilog2(x & -x);
}
-/*
- * ffs: find first bit set. This is defined the same way as
- * the libc and compiler builtin ffs routines, therefore
- * differs in spirit from the above ffz (man ffs).
- */
-static __inline__ int ffs(int x)
-{
- unsigned long i = (unsigned long)x;
- return __ilog2(i & -i) + 1;
-}
+#include <asm-generic/bitops/builtin-ffs.h>
/*
* fls: find last (most-significant) bit set.
--
2.1.0
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-13 08:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: powerpc: Discard ffs() function and use builtin_ffs instead |
| Message-ID | <ryeC5-5YC-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1400160 |
On Thu, 2016-12-05 at 15:32:22 UTC, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> With the ffs() function as defined in arch/powerpc/include/asm/bitops.h
> GCC will not optimise the code in case of constant parameter, as shown
> by the small exemple below.
>
> int ffs_test(void)
> {
> return 4 << ffs(31);
> }
>
> c0012334 <ffs_test>:
> c0012334: 39 20 00 01 li r9,1
> c0012338: 38 60 00 04 li r3,4
> c001233c: 7d 29 00 34 cntlzw r9,r9
> c0012340: 21 29 00 20 subfic r9,r9,32
> c0012344: 7c 63 48 30 slw r3,r3,r9
> c0012348: 4e 80 00 20 blr
>
> With this patch, the same function will compile as follows:
>
> c0012334 <ffs_test>:
> c0012334: 38 60 00 08 li r3,8
> c0012338: 4e 80 00 20 blr
But what code does it generate when it's not a constant?
And which gcc version first added the builtin version?
cheers
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-13 09:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: powerpc: Discard ffs() function and use builtin_ffs instead |
| Message-ID | <ryfeO-6kr-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1400529 |
Le 13/05/2016 à 08:16, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
> On Thu, 2016-12-05 at 15:32:22 UTC, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> With the ffs() function as defined in arch/powerpc/include/asm/bitops.h
>> GCC will not optimise the code in case of constant parameter, as shown
>> by the small exemple below.
>>
>> int ffs_test(void)
>> {
>> return 4 << ffs(31);
>> }
>>
>> c0012334 <ffs_test>:
>> c0012334: 39 20 00 01 li r9,1
>> c0012338: 38 60 00 04 li r3,4
>> c001233c: 7d 29 00 34 cntlzw r9,r9
>> c0012340: 21 29 00 20 subfic r9,r9,32
>> c0012344: 7c 63 48 30 slw r3,r3,r9
>> c0012348: 4e 80 00 20 blr
>>
>> With this patch, the same function will compile as follows:
>>
>> c0012334 <ffs_test>:
>> c0012334: 38 60 00 08 li r3,8
>> c0012338: 4e 80 00 20 blr
>
> But what code does it generate when it's not a constant?
The generated code is the same with and without the patch when not a
constant:
int ffs_test2(int x)
{
return ffs(x);
}
c001233c <ffs_test2>:
c001233c: 7d 23 00 d0 neg r9,r3
c0012340: 7d 23 18 38 and r3,r9,r3
c0012344: 7c 63 00 34 cntlzw r3,r3
c0012348: 20 63 00 20 subfic r3,r3,32
c001234c: 4e 80 00 20 blr
>
> And which gcc version first added the builtin version?
Don't know, but __builtin_ffs() is already used in
arch/powerpc/include/asm/page_32.h
Christophe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gabriel Paubert <paubert@iram.es> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-13 11:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: powerpc: Discard ffs() function and use builtin_ffs instead |
| Message-ID | <ryhgC-qB-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1400529 |
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 04:16:57PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-12-05 at 15:32:22 UTC, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > With the ffs() function as defined in arch/powerpc/include/asm/bitops.h
> > GCC will not optimise the code in case of constant parameter, as shown
> > by the small exemple below.
> >
> > int ffs_test(void)
> > {
> > return 4 << ffs(31);
> > }
> >
> > c0012334 <ffs_test>:
> > c0012334: 39 20 00 01 li r9,1
> > c0012338: 38 60 00 04 li r3,4
> > c001233c: 7d 29 00 34 cntlzw r9,r9
> > c0012340: 21 29 00 20 subfic r9,r9,32
> > c0012344: 7c 63 48 30 slw r3,r3,r9
> > c0012348: 4e 80 00 20 blr
> >
> > With this patch, the same function will compile as follows:
> >
> > c0012334 <ffs_test>:
> > c0012334: 38 60 00 08 li r3,8
> > c0012338: 4e 80 00 20 blr
>
>
> But what code does it generate when it's not a constant?
>
> And which gcc version first added the builtin version?
It already existed in gcc-2.95, which you do not want to use to compile
anything today but I have in a corner of a chroot environment to maintain
~1997 vintage embedded stuff, running a 2.2.12 kernel!
Hopefully this clears up your concerns :-)
Cheers,
Gabriel
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web