Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 00:34:48 +0200 From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] math: rewrite fma with mostly int arithmetics * Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> [2017-04-23 11:15:39 -0400]: > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 01:00:52PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > * Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> [2017-04-22 18:24:25 -0400]: > > > Is it difficult to determine when the multiplication part of an fma is > > > exact? If you can determine this quickly, you can just return x*y+z in > > > this special case and avoid all the costly operations. For normal > > > range, I think it's roughly just using ctz to count mantissa bits of x > > > and y, and checking whether the sum is <= 53. Some additional handling > > > for denormals is needed of course. > > > > it is a bit more difficult than that: > > > > bits(a) + bits(b) < 54 || (bits(a) + bits(b) == 54 && a*b < 2) > > > > this is probably possible to handle when i do the int mul. > > > > however the rounding mode special cases don't get simpler > > and inexact flag still may be raised incorrectly when tail > > bits of x*y beyond 53 bits are eliminated when z is added > > (the result is exact but the dekker algorithm raises inexact). > > One thing to note: even if it's not a replacement for the whole > algorithm, this seems like a very useful optimization for a case > that's easy to test. "return x*y+z;" is going to be a lot faster than > anything else you can do. But maybe it's rare to hit cases where the > optimization works; it certainly "should" be rare if people are using > fma for the semantics rather than as a misguided optimization. i didn't see a simple way to check for exact x*y result (if it were easy then that could capture the exact 0 result case which means one less special case later, but this is not easy if x*y is in the subnormal range or overflows) > > > If the only constraint here is that top 10 bits and last bit are 0, I > > > don't see why clz is even needed. You can meet this constraint for > > > denormals by always multiplying by 2 and using a fixed exponent value. > > > > yeah that should work, but i also use clz later > > Ah, I missed that. Still it might be a worthwhile optimization here; I > think it shaves off a few ops in normalize(). attached a new version with updated normalize. on my laptop latency and code size: old x86_64: 67 ns/call 893 bytes new x86_64: 20 ns/call 960 bytes old i386: 80 ns/call 942 bytes new i386: 75 ns/call 1871 bytes old arm: - 960 bytes new arm: - 1200 bytes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.