Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Mar 2007 09:09:18 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [patch v2] epoll use a single inode ... |
| |
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > That's true for *any* sprintf(), though. sprintf() converts all its arguments > to 64 bits.
Well, it very much uses "do_div()", so that it can do a
64 / 32 -> (div64,mod32)
divide, which is often faster than a full 64:64 divide.
> However, this could be optimized. I think right now sprintf() uses a generic > divide-by-base, but a divide by 8 and 16 can of course be handled with a > shift, and divide by 10 can be replaced with a multiplication by > 0x1999999999999999ULL on most architectures.
Nope. You need both the result of the division *and* the remainder, and you can't do that with a single multiply.
Also, with modern hardware, divides are usually fairly cheap, with early exit logic, so that the common case of small integers is fairly cheap. Yeah, generating a full 64-bit number printout is still expensive, of course (both because you need to do many divides *and* because only the last few divides will be able to do any appreciable early exit logic.
Anyway, I think a full integer divide on Core 2 is something like 22 cycles. Yes, the multiply is much fasster (at 4 cycles), but I think that 22 cycles is actually worst-case.
Somebody who has a benchmark could try.
Linus - 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/
| |