Re: [PATCH RFC] reciprocal_divide: correction/update of the algorithm

[Hannes Frederic Sowa]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:50:32AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 14:22 -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> 
> > I disagree with the statement that current CPU's have reasonably fast
> > dividers.  A lot of embedded processors and many low-end x86 CPU's do
> > not in-fact have any hardware divider, and usually provide it using
> > microcode based emulation if they provide it at all.  The AMD Jaguar
> > micro-architecture in particular comes to mind, it uses an iterative
> > division algorithm provided by the microcode that only produces 2 bits
> > of quotient per cycle, even in the best case (2 8-bit integers and an
> > integral 8-bit quotient) this still takes 4 cycles, which is twice as
> > slow as any other math operation on the same processor.
> 
> I doubt you run any BPF filter with a divide instruction in it on these
> platform.
> 
> Get real, do not over optimize things where it does not matter.

If I read the instruction tables correctly, we could half the latency with
reciprocal divide even on haswell.

What a pitty that the Intel Architecture Code Analyzer does not support imul
nor div instruction. :(

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/