On Thu, 14 May 2026 12:43:21 GMT, Ferenc Rakoczi <[email protected]> wrote:

>> An aarch64 implementation of the MontgomeryIntegerPolynomial256.mult() 
>> method and IntegerPolynomial.conditionalAssign(). Since 64-bit 
>> multiplication is not supported on Neon and manually performing this 
>> operation with 32-bit limbs is slower than with GPRs, a hybrid neon/gpr 
>> approach is used. Neon instructions are used to compute intermediate values 
>> used in the last two iterations of the main "loop", while the GPRs compute 
>> the first few iterations. At the method level this improves performance by 
>> ~9% and at the API level roughly 5%.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------
>> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the 
>> [OpenJDK Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai).
>
> Ferenc Rakoczi has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional 
> commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Added AOT Code Cache related code + some cosmetic changes

src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/stubGenerator_aarch64.cpp line 7738:

> 7736:   // so four calls with the appropriate parameters will produce the 
> 64-bit
> 7737:   // low32 * low32, low32 * high32, high32 * low32, high32 * high32
> 7738:   // values in the output register sequences.

A little more detail would make it easier to understand this method and helpt 
to clarify what is happening in code where it is called
Suggestion:

  // Calls to this function accept either the low 32 bis or high 20 bits
  // of each b_i packed into bs in ascending order. a_0 and a_1 are packed
  // into successive 64 bit elements of as. lane selects the low 32 or high
  // 20 bits of each a_j value. So four calls with the appropriate parameters
  // will produce the 64-bit low32 * low32, low32 * high20, high20 * low32,
  // high20 * high20 values in the output register sequences vs. The
  // 64-bit partial products are returned in vs in ascending order:
  // vs[0] = (b_0*a_0, b_1*a_0) . . .  vs[3] = (b_2*a_1, b_3*a_1)

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30941#discussion_r3257421911

Reply via email to