lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] Improved add_timer_randomness for __CRIS__ (instead of rdtsc())
Date

From: "Oliver Xymoron" <oxymoron@waste.org>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:17:26AM +0200, johan.adolfsson@axis.com wrote:
>
> > I just compared the generated asm:
> > Accurate timestamp scaled to ns: 45 instructions (resolution actually 40
ns)
> > Approximate 40 ns resolution: 21 instructions
> > Approximate 40 us resolution: 9 instructions
> > For comparison one syscall path (gettimeofday()) is approx 400
instructions
> > and the add_timer_randomness() function that only uses jiffies is 76
> > instructions, so mayby I'm microoptimising here?
> > Is it worth the cycles to get 40 ns resolution instead of 40us ?
>
> Seems like it's probably worth the effort. In practice, such
> difference often are lost in the noise compared to cache flushes, etc.
> Does the 'correct' code suffer branch penalties or the like that might
> make it significantly worse than the quick code? If not, then I'd say
> definitely use it.

The correct code has two potential branches instead of one and also
need to stack one register when I have them in functions, but that might
change if the function is inlined in add_timer_randomness().
I can shave off a few instruction if I don't scale it to ns but instead
transform it to a plain 25MHz counter which is what we want anyway I guess.

BTW: I think the trust_pct approach looks nice adn I hope it gets included.

/Johan


-
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 13:28    [W:0.110 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site