lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRE: [PATCH RFC] [x86] Optimize copy-page by reducing impact from HW prefetch
Sure, I separate two patches ASAP, one is for performance tuning code after some experiments,
another code style patch.

Thanks
Ling

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ingo Molnar [mailto:mingo@elte.hu]
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 3:05 PM
> To: Andi Kleen
> Cc: Ma, Ling; hpa@zytor.com; tglx@linutronix.de; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] [x86] Optimize copy-page by reducing impact
> from HW prefetch
>
>
> * Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
>
> > ling.ma@intel.com writes:
> >
> > > impact(DCU prefetcher), and simplify original code. The
> > > performance is improved about 15% on core2, 36% on snb
> > > respectively. (We use our micro-benchmark, and will do further
> > > test according to your requirment)
> >
> > This doesn't make a lot of sense because neither Core-2 nor SNB use
> > the code path you patched. They all use the rep ; movs path
>
> Ling, mind double checking which one is the faster/better one on SNB,
> in cold-cache and hot-cache situations, copy_page or copy_page_c?
>
> Also, while looking at this file please fix the countless pieces of
> style excrements it has before modifying it:
>
> - non-Linux comment style (and needless two comments - it can
> be in one comment block):
>
> /* Don't use streaming store because it's better when the target
> ends up in cache. */
>
> /* Could vary the prefetch distance based on SMP/UP */
>
> - (there's other non-standard comment blocks in this file as well)
>
> - The copy_page/copy_page_c naming is needlessly obfuscated, it
> should be copy_page, copy_page_norep or so - the _c postfix has no
> obvious meaning.
>
> - all #include's should be at the top
>
> - please standardize it on the 'instrn %x, %y' pattern that we
> generally use in arch/x86/, not 'instrn %x,%y' pattern.
>
> and do this cleanup patch first and the speedup on top of it, and
> keep the two in two separate patches so that the modification to the
> assembly code can be reviewed more easily.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-06-24 04:05    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans