On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 08:00:12PM -0500, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>>> This is a trivial rewrite of the loops that results in better cache
>>> efficiency. Essentially, iter
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 08:00:12PM -0500, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> This is a trivial rewrite of the loops that results in better cache
>> efficiency. Essentially, iterating backwards over an array is a bad
>> idea, since it leads to
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 08:32:05PM -0500, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 08:00:12PM -0500, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> >> This is a trivial rewrite of the loops that results in better cache
> >> efficiency. Essent
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 08:00:12PM -0500, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> This is a trivial rewrite of the loops that results in better cache
> efficiency. Essentially, iterating backwards over an array is a bad
> idea, since it leads to many cache misses: forward iteration fetches a
> new cache line t
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde
wrote:
> This is a trivial rewrite of the loops that results in better cache
> efficiency. Essentially, iterating backwards over an array is a bad
> idea, since it leads to many cache misses: forward iteration fetches a
> new cache line that gets
This is a trivial rewrite of the loops that results in better cache
efficiency. Essentially, iterating backwards over an array is a bad
idea, since it leads to many cache misses: forward iteration fetches a
new cache line that gets subsequently used, while backwards iteration fetches
the
cache lin
