On 9/11/21 4:41 PM, Rémi Bernon wrote:
On 9/11/21 8:51 AM, Piotr Caban wrote:
Signed-off-by: Piotr Caban <piotr(a)codeweavers.com> --- dlls/msvcrt/string.c | 126 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 126 insertions(+)
FWIW as far as I can see on my simple throughput benchmarks, and with the default optimization flags (-O2), the unrolled C version:
* Outperforms the SSE2 assembly on x86_64 for n <= 32 (20GB/s vs 12GB/s for n = 32), and performs equally as good for "aligned" operations on larger sizes.
* It performs roughly at a third (25GB/s vs 70GB/s on my computer) on unaligned operations like memset(dst + 1, src, n) and n >= 256.
* On i686 it performs equally for small sizes (n <= 128) and then performs at half the throughput (35GB/s vs 70GB/s) for aligned operations and a third for unaligned ones.
It still has the advantage of being C code, benefiting all architectures. I think we should also improve the C implementation (I was planning to encourage you to upstream it).
I don't have your full benchmark results but I think that the general conclusion is that SSE implementation is equally good or much faster for n>=64. I will need to improve the n<64 case. Here are some results from my machine (x86_64, it shows how SSE implementation compares to yours): - 64MB aligned block - 1.2 * faster - 64MB unaligned - 1.3 * faster - 1MB aligned - 2 * faster - 1MB unaligned - 5 * faster - 32 bytes aligned - 2 * slower - 32 bytes unaligned - 2.3 * slower - 9 bytes - 1.3 * slower Thanks, Piotr