|From:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk, david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: Using POPCNT and other advanced bit manipulation instructions|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2019-Feb-15, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Ah, I understand it now:
> > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/25683690/confusion-about-bsr-and-lzcnt/43443701#43443701
> > if you call LZCNT/TZCNT on a CPU that doesn't support it, it won't raise
> > SIGILL or anything ... it'll just silently compute the wrong result.
> > That's certainly not what I call a fallback!
> Yeah, that's pretty nasty; it means there's no backstop for whether
> your choose function gets it right :-(
Hopefully other tests will fail in some visible way, though. My fear is
whether we have such systems in buildfarm.
> Is POPCNT any better in this respect?
I couldn't find how is POPCNT encoded. https://stackoverflow.com/a/28803917/242383
This suggests that this all a largely pointless exercise at least on
Intel and GCC/Clang. It may be better on AMD ... but to get really
better performance we'd need to be coding the popcnt calls in assembly
rather than using the compiler intrinsics, even with -mpopcnt, because
the intrinsics suck.
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
|Next Message||Tomas Vondra||2019-02-15 16:05:00||Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries|
|Previous Message||John Naylor||2019-02-15 16:03:13||Re: Reporting script runtimes in pg_regress|