| 1 |
Am 02.05.2015 um 14:38 schrieb Nikos Chantziaras: |
| 2 |
> On 02/05/15 15:10, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Am 02.05.2015 um 14:06 schrieb Nikos Chantziaras: |
| 4 |
>>> On 02/05/15 14:37, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> Am 02.05.2015 um 13:25 schrieb Nikos Chantziaras: |
| 6 |
>>>>>>> |
| 7 |
>>>>>>> The kernel uses -O2 and several -march variants (e.g. |
| 8 |
>>>>>>> -march=core2). |
| 9 |
>>>>>>> Several other options are used to prevent GCC from generating |
| 10 |
>>>>>>> unsuitable code. |
| 11 |
>>>>>>> |
| 12 |
>>>>>>> Specifying another -march variant does not affect the optimizer |
| 13 |
>>>>>>> though. It only affects the code generator. If you don't modify the |
| 14 |
>>>>>>> other CFLAGS and only change -march, you will not get FP |
| 15 |
>>>>>>> instructions |
| 16 |
>>>>>>> unless you use FP in the code. |
| 17 |
>>>>>> |
| 18 |
>>>>>> http://www.agner.org/optimize/calling_conventions.pdf |
| 19 |
>>>>> |
| 20 |
>>>>> Not sure what you're trying to say. |
| 21 |
>>>>> |
| 22 |
>>>> |
| 23 |
>>>> that simd is not save in kernel if not carefully guarded. |
| 24 |
>>>> |
| 25 |
>>>> Really people, just don't fuck around with the cflags. |
| 26 |
>>> |
| 27 |
>>> I still fail to see the relevance. Unless you mean using a different |
| 28 |
>>> -O level. In that case, yes. You shouldn't. But I was talking about |
| 29 |
>>> -march. |
| 30 |
>>> |
| 31 |
>> |
| 32 |
>> you said this |
| 33 |
>> |
| 34 |
>>> |
| 35 |
>>> (note that SIMD is not FP and is perfectly fine in the kernel.) |
| 36 |
>> |
| 37 |
>> and I have shown you that you are wrong. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> Not sure why you think that. The kernel crypto routines are full of |
| 40 |
> SIMD code (like SSE and AVX.) Automatic vectorization wouldn't work. |
| 41 |
> But -march is not going to introduce that |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
and never used in interrupt context and carefully guarded. You act like |
| 44 |
'oh, you can use simd instructions without any consideration' and that |
| 45 |
is just not true. |
Archives