lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateMon, 19 May 2008 23:53:29 -0700
FromJohn Hubbard <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] bitreversal program
Harvey Harrison wrote:

>> +static inline u32 gen_bit_rev(u32 x, u32 k)
>> {
>> - return byte_rev_table[byte];
>> + if(k & 1)
>> + x = (x & 0x55555555) << 1 | (x & 0xaaaaaaaa) >> 1;
>> + if(k & 2)
>> + x = (x & 0x33333333) << 2 | (x & 0xcccccccc) >> 2;
>> + if(k & 4)
>> + x = (x & 0x0f0f0f0f) << 4 | (x & 0xf0f0f0f0) >> 4;
>> + if(k & 8)
>> + x = (x & 0x00ff00ff) << 8 | (x & 0xff00ff00) >> 8;
>> + if(k & 16)
>> + x = (x & 0x0000ffff) << 16 | (x & 0xffff0000) >> 16;
>> +
>> + return x;
>> }
>
> Why is this better than a single 256 byte table?
>
> Harvey
>

One reason it could be better, at least in some situations, is that the
above is more likely to execute directly from the CPU's instruction
cache. The table lookup appears more efficient at first, until you
consider the memory caching hierarchy.

--John Hubbard


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-05-20 08:55    [from the cache]
©2003-2010