Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:16:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:16:48 -0400 Received: from gra-lx1.iram.es ([150.214.224.41]:21768 "EHLO gra-lx1.iram.es") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:16:47 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 15:21:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Gabriel Paubert To: Jamie Lokier cc: Hirokazu Takahashi , , Subject: Re: TCP Segmentation Offloading (TSO) In-Reply-To: <20020905121717.A15540@kushida.apsleyroad.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1157 Lines: 37 On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Gabriel Paubert wrote: > > Now that is grossly inefficient ;-) since you can save one instruction by > > moving roll after adcl (hand edited partial patch hunk, won't apply): > > Yes but is it _faster_? :-) Hard to tell, with OOO engine and decoder constraints. But once again it is in the out of mainline code path for odd buffer addresses, not in the loop, so its performance is not critical. Actually code size may have more impact it ends up spanning one more cache line (or even a 16 byte block used as fetch unit by P6 cores). > > I've been doing some PPro assembly lately, and I'm reminded that > sometimes inserting instructions can reduce the timing by up to 8 cycles > or so. The one instruction that you can still be moved around easily is the pointer increment. But I would never try to improve code paths that I consider non critical. Gabriel. - 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/