lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Dec]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Why does C3 CPU downgrade in kernel 2.4.20?
Date
On 12 December 2002 18:09, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > I believe someone (Jeff Garzik?) benchmarked gcc code
> > > > generation, and the C3 executed code scheduled for a 486 faster
> > > > than it did for -m586
> > > > I'm not sure about the alignment flags. I've been meaning to
> > > > look into that myself...
> > >
> > > Interesting. I have no clue about which C3 you're talking about
> > > here but a VIA Ezra has all 686 instructions including cmov and
> > > thus optimising for PPro works best for me.
> > >
> > > Prolly I would have to do more benchmarking to find out about
> > > aligment advantages.
> >
> > I heard cmovs are microcoded in Centaurs.
> >
> > s...l...o...w...
>
> It still might be faster then a branch... or not if centaurs are
> really that simple.
> Pavel

I did not measure it myself, but rumors were they took tens of cycles.

Well, a IFcc prefix meaning 'execute next instruction if' would be
way more cool that CMOVcc. Because I want CADDcc, CTESTcc, CBSWAPcc too ;)

But since all 1 byte opcodes are taken and

Jcc skip # <- 2 byte opcode
opcode op1,op2
skip:

I think some CPU magic can detect such short jumps and handle'em just like
they were such a prefix, saving potential branch (mis-)prediction.
--
vda
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:31    [W:0.122 / U:1.544 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site