mailing list of musl libc
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: "Mattias Andrée" <maandree@kth.se>
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [musl] [PATCH v2 2/2] Use modulo instead of mul+sub in __secs_to_tm
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2021 20:52:12 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210228205212.7ef9e8b4.maandree@kth.se> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210228193733.GF354034@port70.net>

On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 20:37:33 +0100
Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net> wrote:

> * Mattias Andrée <maandree@kth.se> [2021-02-28 20:22:10 +0100]:
> > On x86 modulo is free when doing division, so this removes  
> 
> there should be no division.
> 
> div by const is transformed to mul and shift at -O1 and
> that's what we should be using instead of manual hacks.
> 
> https://godbolt.org/z/Wsxq5h

For -Os, the currently used optimisation, it does division.
But for other optimisations, it makes no difference as the
compiler will do a multiply–subtract either way.

> 
> > a multiplication and at the cost of replacing a conditional
> > move with a conditional jump, but it still appears to be
> > faster.
> > (Similar architectures: nds32le)
> > 
> > ARM doesn't have modulo, instead an multiply-and-subtract
> > operation is done after the division, so the diffence
> > here is either none at all, or a move and a multiply-and-add
> > being replaced with a multiply-and-subtract.
> > (Similar architectures: or1k)
> > 
> > RISC-V on the other hand has a separate modulo
> > instruction and will perform a separate modulo instead of
> > an assignment, a multiplication, and an addition with
> > this change. GCC does change how the modulo operation is
> > realised depending on the optimisation level. I don't know
> > how this affects the performance, however a simple test on
> > x86 suggests that doing a modulo operations is actually
> > faster than assign–multiply–add.  
> 
> did you benchmark with CFLAGS=-O2 or -Os ?

I guess it must have been -O0 or -Os, but what I did was
I made a trivial program and checked that assembly output,
to see which method was faster. The important part here
was that the compiler didn't change the division operation,
so adding optimisation might have bad the test pointless.
As I wrote, for RISC-V the compiler did exactly what was
written, no matter the optimisation level, that is, for
RISC-V I tried, -O0, -O1, -O2, -O3, and -Os.

> 
> > ---
> >  src/time/__secs_to_tm.c | 18 +++++++++++++++---
> >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/src/time/__secs_to_tm.c b/src/time/__secs_to_tm.c
> > index 62219df5..348e51ec 100644
> > --- a/src/time/__secs_to_tm.c
> > +++ b/src/time/__secs_to_tm.c
> > @@ -39,16 +39,28 @@ int __secs_to_tm(long long t, struct tm *tm)
> >  		qc_cycles--;
> >  	}
> >  
> > +#if 1
> > +	c_cycles = remdays / DAYS_PER_100Y;
> > +	remdays %= DAYS_PER_100Y;
> > +	if (c_cycles == 4) {
> > +		remdays += DAYS_PER_100Y;
> > +		c_cycles--;
> > +	}
> > +#else
> >  	c_cycles = remdays / DAYS_PER_100Y;
> >  	if (c_cycles == 4) c_cycles--;
> >  	remdays -= c_cycles * DAYS_PER_100Y;
> > +#endif
> >  
> >  	q_cycles = remdays / DAYS_PER_4Y;
> > -	remdays -= q_cycles * DAYS_PER_4Y;
> > +	remdays %= DAYS_PER_4Y;
> >  
> >  	remyears = remdays / 365;
> > -	if (remyears == 4) remyears--;
> > -	remdays -= remyears * 365;
> > +	remdays %= 365;
> > +	if (remyears == 4) {
> > +		remdays += 365;
> > +		remyears--;
> > +	}
> >  
> >  	leap = !remyears && (q_cycles || !c_cycles);
> >  	yday = remdays + 31 + 28 + leap;
> > -- 
> > 2.30.1  


  reply	other threads:[~2021-02-28 19:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-28 15:09 [musl] [PATCH] Remove unnecessary if " Mattias Andrée
2021-02-28 17:06 ` Rich Felker
2021-02-28 17:24   ` Mattias Andrée
2021-02-28 17:34     ` Rich Felker
2021-02-28 19:22 ` [musl] [PATCH v2 1/2] " Mattias Andrée
2021-02-28 19:22   ` [musl] [PATCH v2 2/2] Use modulo instead of mul+sub " Mattias Andrée
2021-02-28 19:37     ` Szabolcs Nagy
2021-02-28 19:52       ` Mattias Andrée [this message]
2021-02-28 19:58       ` Jon Chesterfield
2021-03-01 19:26         ` Markus Wichmann
2021-02-28 19:27 ` [musl] [PATCH v3 1/2] Remove unnecessary if " Mattias Andrée
2021-02-28 19:27   ` [musl] [PATCH v3 2/2] Use modulo instead of mul+sub " Mattias Andrée

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20210228205212.7ef9e8b4.maandree@kth.se \
    --to=maandree@kth.se \
    --cc=musl@lists.openwall.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/musl/

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).