Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/4] Reinstate and improve MIPS `do_div' implementation | From | "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <> | Date | Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:00:34 +0200 |
| |
Hi,
> Am 20.04.2021 um 04:50 schrieb Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@orcam.me.uk>: > > Hi, > > As Huacai has recently discovered the MIPS backend for `do_div' has been > broken and inadvertently disabled with commit c21004cd5b4c ("MIPS: Rewrite > <asm/div64.h> to work with gcc 4.4.0."). As it is code I have originally > written myself and Huacai had issues bringing it back to life leading to a > request to discard it even I have decided to step in. > > In the end I have fixed the code and measured its performance to be ~100% > better on average than our generic code.
That would be good.
> I have decided it would be worth > having the test module I have prepared for correctness evaluation as well > as benchmarking, so I have included it with the series, also so that I can > refer to the results easily. > > In the end I have included four patches on this occasion: 1/4 is the test > module, 2/4 is an inline documentation fix/clarification for the `do_div' > wrapper, 3/4 enables the MIPS `__div64_32' backend and 4/4 adds a small > performance improvement to it.
How can I apply them to the kernel? There is something wrong which makes git am fail.
> > I have investigated a fifth change as a potential improvement where I > replaced the call to `do_div64_32' with a DIVU instruction for cases where > the high part of the intermediate divident is zero, but it has turned out > to regress performance a little, so I have discarded it. > > Also a follow-up change might be worth having to reduce the code size and > place `__div64_32' out of line for CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE configurations, > but I have not fully prepared such a change at this time. I did use the > WIP form I have for performance evaluation however; see the figures quoted > with 4/4. > > These changes have been verified with a DECstation system with an R3400 > MIPS I processor @40MHz and a MTI Malta system with a 5Kc MIPS64 processor > @160MHz.
I'd like to test on ~320 MHz JZ4730.
> > See individual change descriptions and any additional discussions for > further details. > > Questions, comments or concerns? Otherwise please apply. > > Maciej
BR and thanks, Nikolaus Schaller
| |