From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-170.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-170.mimecast.com [216.205.24.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E279F80294 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:21:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=phoenix.com; s=mimecast20170203; t=1489015274; bh=9/beq3tYfeoMCDGiOa73ZRBo0roWo7YyT2IeepooDo0=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=hdevhpC0mEmp8YR6EHICX0AGkB9bwXhlJ0PtyMSsq6p2vBV85Okk2Pjra7eYMMqwsm1dBSw/paUB/+trug8Po3ISbc9ZnXbZ/7RQpH1dBBkl6N2Atk7wthBukoN8AAOui0RD4Zzfm1B/OyGjMFEXyseujnXaphO7C9s2Iqr2IVc= X-CrossPremisesHeadersFilteredBySendConnector: SCL-EXCHMB-13.phoenix.com Received: from SCL-EXCHMB-13.phoenix.com (scl-owa.phoenix.com [134.122.240.15]) (Using TLS) by us-smtp-1.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-157-o9_SO2AQMcip4BPZEOqcXw-1; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 18:21:12 -0500 Received: from SCL-EXCHMB-13.phoenix.com (2607:f0dc:5001:1:f438:5eb8:75e6:cad4) by SCL-EXCHMB-13.phoenix.com (2607:f0dc:5001:1:f438:5eb8:75e6:cad4) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1156.6; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:21:10 -0800 Received: from SCL-EXCHMB-13.phoenix.com ([fe80::fd2e:a8f8:f740:cb3b]) by SCL-EXCHMB-13.phoenix.com ([fe80::fd2e:a8f8:f740:cb3b%12]) with mapi id 15.00.1156.000; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:21:10 -0800 From: Ken Taylor To: Amit kumar , "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" Thread-Topic: [edk2] SIMD Instruction supported in UEFI? Thread-Index: AQHSmBw9M0948BtO1kiMYhV1jtG5H6GLk5pw Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 23:21:10 +0000 Message-ID: <6474ce0dd97147ba9eef6652fbc64529@SCL-EXCHMB-13.phoenix.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [134.122.40.54] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: SCL-EXCHMB-13.phoenix.com X-MC-Unique: o9_SO2AQMcip4BPZEOqcXw-1 Subject: Re: SIMD Instruction supported in UEFI? X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 23:21:16 -0000 Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Amit, Maybe in UEFI the code in question crosses a cache line boundary when execu= ted in UEFI, with the loop or part of the instruction itself on one side of= the boundary and the rest on the other? At what point are you trying to e= xecute this code, is it still from the UEFI shell or have you moved it into= a driver that runs earlier? You might try changing the linker flags to force 4k code alignment on your = test binary. Regards, -Ken. -----Original Message----- From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Amit= kumar Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 7:10 AM To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org Subject: [edk2] SIMD Instruction supported in UEFI? Hi ; I have written a UEFI app in ASM which runs XOR on a block of data using SI= MD instructions ("PXOR") in UEFI environment. It takes around 2 Seconds to run this code, but when i use normal C XOR ope= rator ("^") it takes 1 Seconds. Is there something wrong ? I mean SIMD instructions must be giving me bette= r performance(my expectation); But when i do same experiment in Windows environment SIMD code ( _mm_xor_si= 128 ) gives me 9 times better performance than normal XOR instruction. = =20 Have i missed something?. Regards Amit Kumar _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel