| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Using POPCNT and other advanced bit manipulation instructions |
| Date: | 2019-02-14 18:47:13 |
| Message-ID: | 20190214184713.GA6080@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Feb-14, Tom Lane wrote:
> Some further thoughts here ...
>
> Does the "lzcnt" runtime probe actually do anything useful?
> On the x86_64 compilers I tried (gcc 8.2.1 and 4.4.7), __builtin_clz
> and __builtin_ctz compile to sequences involving bsrq and bsfq
> regardless of -mpopcnt. It's fairly hard to see how lzcnt would
> buy anything over those sequences even if there were zero overhead
> involved in using it.
Hah, I just realized you have to add -mlzcnt in order for these builtins
to use the lzcnt instructions. It goes from something like
bsrq %rax, %rax
xorq $63, %rax
to
lzcntq %rax, %rax
Significant?
I have this patch now, written before I realized the above; I'll augment
it to cater to this (adding -mlzcnt and a new set of functions --
perhaps a new file "lzcnt.c" or maybe put the lot in pg_popcount.c and
rename it?) and resubmit after an errand I have to run now.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| popcount.patch | text/x-diff | 11.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-02-14 18:54:32 | Re: Using POPCNT and other advanced bit manipulation instructions |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-02-14 18:44:02 | Re: \describe* |