Re: [PATCH RFC] [X86] performance improvement for memcpy_64.S byfast string.

From: H. Peter Anvin
Date: Fri Nov 06 2009 - 14:26:26 EST

On 11/06/2009 09:07 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Where did the 1024 byte threshold come from? It seems a bit high to me,
> and is at the very best a CPU-specific tuning factor.
> Andi is of course correct that older CPUs might suffer (sadly enough),
> which is why we'd at the very least need some idea of what the
> performance impact on those older CPUs would look like -- at that point
> we can make a decision to just unconditionally do the rep movs or
> consider some system where we point at different implementations for
> different processors -- memcpy is probably one of the very few
> operations for which something like that would make sense.

To be expicit: Ling, would you be willing to run some benchmarks across
processors to see how this performs on non-Nehalem CPUs?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at