Am 25.03.2013 um 15:34 schrieb Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>:
> Il 25/03/2013 14:32, Peter Lieven ha scritto:
>>
>> Am 25.03.2013 um 14:23 schrieb Peter Lieven <p...@kamp.de>:
>>
>>>
>>> Am 25.03.2013 um 14:02 schrieb Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>:
>>>
>>>>> Maybe I should have explained the output more detailed. The percentages
>>>>> are added. 35.8% in the second last column means that
>>>>> 35.8% have a return value that is less than TARGET_PAGE_SIZE.
>>>>> This was meant to illustrate at how many 64-bit chunks you have
>>>>> to look to grab a certain percentage of non-zero pages.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, I wrongly understood that many pages had 4088 zero bytes but
>>>> the last 8 were not zero. Now it's clearer, and more logical too. :)
>>>>
>>>>> Looking e.g. at the third value it means that looking at the first
>>>>> three 64-bit chunks it will catch 34.0% of all pages.
>>>>> It turns out that the non-zeroness of a page can be detected looking
>>>>> at the first 256 or so bits and only a low
>>>>> percentage turns out to be non-zero at a later position. So after
>>>>> having checked the first chunks one by one
>>>>> there is no big penalty looking at the remaining chunks with the
>>>>> vectorized loop.
>>>>
>>>> I think it makes most sense to unroll the first four non-vectorized
>>>> iterations, i.e. not use SSE and use three or four ifs. Either:
>>>>
>>>> if (foo[0]) return 0;
>>>> if (foo[1]) return 8;
>>>> if (foo[2]) return 16;
>>>> if (foo[3]) return 24;
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> if (foo[0]) return 0;
>>>> if (foo[1] | foo[2] | foo[3]) return 8;
>>>>
>>>> and then proceed on the remaining 4096-4*sizeof(long) bytes with
>>>> the vectorized loop. foo+4 is aligned for SIMD operations on both
>>>> 32- and 64-bit machines, which makes this a nice choice.
>>>
>>> i can't start at foo+4 since the remaining X-4*sizeof(long) bytes
>>> are not dividable by 8*sizeof(VECTYPE).
>
>
> Hmm, right. What about just processing the first few longs twice, i.e.
> the above followed by "for (i = 0; i < len / sizeof(sizeof(VECTYPE); i
> += BUFFER_FIND_NONZERO_OFFSET_UNROLL_FACTOR)"?
i will profile it tomorrow.
what is bad about processing the first 8 vectors like described below?
>> for (i = 0; i < BUFFER_FIND_NONZERO_OFFSET_UNROLL_FACTOR; i++) {
>> if (!ALL_EQ(p[i], zero)) {
>> return i * sizeof(VECTYPE);
>> }
>> }
this way it would not be necessary to process them twice.
Peter
