![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Zachary Amsden wrote: > Benjamin LaHaise wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 11:09:42AM -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote: >> >>> Every processor I've ever measured it on, popf is slower. On P4, for >>> example, pushf is 6 cycles, and popf is 54. On Opteron, it is 2 / >>> 12. On Xeon, it is 7 / 91. >> >> pushf has to wait until all flag dependancies can be resolved. On the >> P4 with >100 instructions in flight, that can take a long time. Popf >> on the other hand has no dependancies on outstanding instructions as >> it resets the machine state. > > Yes, but as Linus points out popf is most likely microcoded, thus much > slower. Flag dependency is not unique to pushf, many much more common > instructions (adc, jcc, sbc, cmovcc, movs, stos, ...) have flag > dependencies, which can still be pipeline forwarded. I think the raw > cycle counts speak for themselves, despite the fact that I only measured > instruction latency, not throughput. Using a branch to eliminate a > pushf is thus probably not a win in most cases. > The "sane" decomposition of popf into uops something like this: - Memory read - Mask bits that are immutable in the current mode - Trap to microcode on changing any bit that alters the pipeline state The "trap to microcode" can obviously be arbitrarily expensive. So when timing popf, it's also important to know *which* bits change. The simplest case, obviously, is when no flags change. I still *fully* expect that to be more painful than pushf ever is. -hpa - 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: 2006-11-05 20:15 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||