Re: ARM NEON optimisations for gf-complete/jerasure/ceph-erasure

[Janne Grunau <j@jannau.net>]

Hi Kevin,

On 2014-09-16 11:25:12 -0700, Kevin Greenan wrote:
> 
> I feel that separating the arch-specific implementations out and have a
> default 'generic' implementation would be a huge improvement.  Note that
> gf-complete was in active development for some time before including the
> SIMD code.  In hindsight, we should have done this separation back in 2012,
> but had some time pressure due to a paper deadline and limited time
> available to the contributors.
> 
> Also, I agree w.r.t. the preprocessor stuff.  Going with SIMD/NOSIMD is
> fine by me.

I'll rename than and start implementing neon optimized function in their 
own files.
 
> Also, there should be very little "SIMD" work with jerasure, as gf-complete
> is the Galois field backend, so I would not worry too much about that.

I noticed, I have hooked my neon code already locally in ceph with 
touching jerasure.

> That covers "clean-up" work.  We can discuss the best way to choose the
> underlying implementation (looks like we have a bunch of options) as this
> work is completed.
> 
> With this in mind, what work were you planning to do?  I can try to free up
> cycles to help, but that may not happen for a few weeks.

Primarily NEON optimisations for gf-complete/ceph. Shouldn't take more 
than a few days though.

> One last thing...  If you do have code you want to push upstream, please
> submit a pull request(s) to our main bitbucket repo.
> 
> Make sense?

yes, thanks.

Janne