To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: "Ma, Ling" <ling.ma@intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
       Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
       linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] [X86] performance improvement for memcpy_64.S by fast string.
From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
References: <1257500482-16182-1-git-send-email-ling.ma@intel.com>
	<4AF457E0.4040107@zytor.com> <4AF4784C.5090800@zytor.com>
	<8FED46E8A9CA574792FC7AACAC38FE7714FCF772C9@PDSMSX501.ccr.corp.intel.com>
	<4AF7C66C.6000009@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:26:14 +0100
In-Reply-To: <4AF7C66C.6000009@zytor.com> (H. Peter Anvin's message of "Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:36:12 -0800")
Message-ID: <87ws2059s9.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 911
Lines: 26

"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> writes:
>
> My personal opinion is that if we can show no significant slowdown on
> P4, K8, P-M/Core 1, Core 2, and Nehalem then we can simply use this code

The issue is Core 2.

P4 uses a different path, and Core 1 doesn't use the 64bit code.

> unconditionally.  If one of them is radically worse than baseline, then
> we have to do something conditional, which is a lot more complicated.

I have an older patchkit which did this, and some more optimizations
to this code.

There was still one open issue, that is why I didn't post it. If there's
interest I can post it.

-Andi
-- 
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/