From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Aug 22 14:35:22 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D71CD106564A;
	Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:35:22 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from luigi@onelab2.iet.unipi.it)
Received: from onelab2.iet.unipi.it (onelab2.iet.unipi.it [131.114.59.238])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94B468FC18;
	Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:35:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by onelab2.iet.unipi.it (Postfix, from userid 275)
	id A75E57300A; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:54:29 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:54:29 +0200
From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>
To: Mitya <mitya@cabletv.dp.ua>
Message-ID: <20120822145429.GB64686@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
References: <20120821112415.GA50078@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
	<201208220232.q7M2WLCL020204@ref10-i386.freebsd.org>
	<20120822143632.GA64686@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
	<5034EC27.1070203@cabletv.dp.ua>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5034EC27.1070203@cabletv.dp.ua>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: speed tests (Re: Replace bcopy() to update ether_addr)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:35:23 -0000

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 05:26:47PM +0300, Mitya wrote:
> 22.08.2012 17:36, Luigi Rizzo ??????????????:
> >On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 02:32:21AM +0000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >>luigi wrote:
> >>
> >>>even more orthogonal:
> >>>
> >>>I found that copying 8n + (5, 6 or 7) bytes was much much slower than
> >>>copying a multiple of 8 bytes. For n=0, 1,2,4,8 bytes are efficient,
> >>>other cases are slow (turned into 2 or 3 different writes).
> >>>
> >>>The netmap code uses a pkt_copy routine that does exactly this
> >>>rounding, gaining some 10-20ns per packet for small sizes.
> >>I don't believe 10-20ns for just the extra bytes.  memcpy() ends up
> >>with a movsb to copy the extra bytes.  This can be slow, but I don't
> >>believe 10-20ns (except on machines running at i486 speeds of course).
> >I am adding at the end a test program so people can try things on their hw.
> >
> >Build it with
> >
> >	cc -O2 -Werror -Wall -Wextra  -lpthread -lrt testlock.c -o testlock
> >
> >
> 
> # uname -a
> FreeBSD m18.cabletv.dp.ua 9.0-STABLE FreeBSD 9.0-STABLE #1: Tue Apr 24 
> 13:23:05 EEST 2012 root@m18.cabletv.dp.ua:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/m18 i386
> 
> cc -O2 -Werror -Wall -Wextra  -lpthread -lrt testlock.c -o testlock
> 
> testlock.c: In function 'test_rdtsc':
> testlock.c:151: error: can't find a register in class 'AD_REGS' while 
> reloading 'asm'
> testlock.c:151: error: 'asm' operand has impossible constraints

i forgot to mention that i tried this only on amd64, my ASM is horrible.
Just comment out the offending lines and do not run those tests.

Or, if you have a portable fix, let me know and everybody will
appreciate it.

cheers
luigi