lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/4] lib: vsprintf: Optimize put_dec_trunc8
>>  lib/vsprintf.c |   20 ++++++--------------
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/vsprintf.c b/lib/vsprintf.c
>> index a8e7392..3ca77b8 100644
>> --- a/lib/vsprintf.c
>> +++ b/lib/vsprintf.c
>> @@ -174,20 +174,12 @@ char *put_dec_trunc8(char *buf, unsigned r)
>> unsigned q;
>>=20=20
>> /* Copy of previous function's body with added early returns */
>> - q = (r * (uint64_t)0x1999999a) >> 32;
>> - *buf++ = (r - 10 * q) + '0'; /* 2 */
>> - if (q == 0)
>> - return buf;
>> - r = (q * (uint64_t)0x1999999a) >> 32;
>> - *buf++ = (q - 10 * r) + '0'; /* 3 */
>> - if (r == 0)
>> - return buf;
>> - q = (r * (uint64_t)0x1999999a) >> 32;
>> - *buf++ = (r - 10 * q) + '0'; /* 4 */
>> - if (q == 0)
>> - return buf;
>> - r = (q * (uint64_t)0x1999999a) >> 32;
>> - *buf++ = (q - 10 * r) + '0'; /* 5 */
>> + while (r >= 10000) {
>> + q = r + '0';
>> + r = (r * (uint64_t)0x1999999a) >> 32;
>> + *buf++ = q - 10*r;
>> + }

> This loop looks nothing like the original code. Why are you adding '0'
> at the beginning?

Because I was trying to avoid useless bare "move" instructions
when converting to a non-swapping loop, and putting it up
there made clear that the copy could be combined with a
useful add on a 3-operand machine. (Or even a 2-operand with
lea.)

Compilers are probably smart enough to figure that out by themselves,
but it mirrors my thinking as I was writing the code.

While it is a bit subtle, it's only three lines of code, and
I figured the equivalence to
"q = r; r = <math>; +buf++ = q - 10*r + '0';"
was pretty easy to see.


> Also, the original code switches the role of q and r,
> the loop does not.

Well, obviously; I had to do that to make it possible to put
into a loop.

Truthfully, it would have made *more* sense to swap q and r globally,
so the loop had a more sensible q=quotient/r=remainder assignment,
but I wanted to show that the unmodified tail was in fact unmodified.

The big saving from using a loop is that it avoids unnecessary
32x32->64-bit multiplies, falling through to the 16x16->32-bit
code as early as possible. Given that most numbers are small,
this seemed like a significant win.

(As long as it doesn't add additional unpredictable conditional
branches, which are also expensive.)


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-09-24 14:21    [W:0.247 / U:0.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site