From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 07:18:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 07:18:10 -0500 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:43905 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 07:18:03 -0500 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 04:17:08 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <20020111.041708.75430965.davem@redhat.com> To: anders.vedmar@interactiveinstitute.se Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4.17 raid5 checksumming function selection wierdness From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <200201111208.g0BC8wI29387@nav.interactiveinstitute.se> In-Reply-To: <200201111208.g0BC8wI29387@nav.interactiveinstitute.se> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Anders Vedmar Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:12:53 +0100 The raid5 code in 2.4.17 seems to select the slowest available checksumming function. It does so because: 1) It performs better for the cache miss case and 2) it is more cache friendly