On Sun, 2008-04-20 at 01:29 +0300, Matti Aarnio wrote:
quoted text
> I am curious, why not take the code already in glibc ffs() for ARM ?
> That is, if the ffs() is all that important detail in kernel ?

Here's test results with the glibc ffs implementation.
(small const is still using slower add rather than or)

$ gcc -Os -fomit-frame-pointer ffs.c
$ ./a.out
Original:       3155 tics,  8331 tics
New:            4211 tics,  8793 tics
Smallest:       4019 tics,  7754 tics
Small const:    3552 tics,  6308 tics
glibc:          2816 tics,  6911 tics
Empty loop:     1516 tics,  2244 tics

$ gcc -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer ffs.c
$ ./a.out
Original:       3155 tics,  7828 tics
New:            4792 tics,  8825 tics
Smallest:       4401 tics,  7155 tics
Small const:    3539 tics,  5805 tics
glibc:          2720 tics,  7061 tics
Empty loop:     1516 tics,  2148 tics

$ gcc -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer ffs.c
$ ./a.out
Original:       3080 tics,  7706 tics
New:            4721 tics,  8663 tics
Smallest:       4334 tics,  7116 tics
Small const:    3466 tics,  5672 tics
glibc:          2649 tics,  6939 tics
Empty loop:     1444 tics,  2012 tics


--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/