From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Williams Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v2 1/1] dm-raid45 Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:48:08 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1259243112-28175-1-git-send-email-heinzm@redhat.com> <1260380840.9639.99.camel@o> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1260380840.9639.99.camel@o> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: heinzm@redhat.com, device-mapper development Cc: linux-raid List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Heinz Mauelshagen = wrote: > On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 17:38 -0700, Dan Williams wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:45 AM, =A0 wrote: >> > From: Heinz Mauelshagen >> > >> > Neil et al., >> > >> > finally got around to creating a followup (interim) patch, which a= llows >> > for changing the xor algorithn at runtime via the message interfac= e, >> > hence allowing to test if the xor unrole optimization around the >> > supported algorithms is performing better than the assembler >> > optimized one in the kernel. >> >> Now that perf is available it would be good to get some comparative >> cache utilization statistics on the two approaches. > > I'd appreciate it. > Do you have any time to spend on this comparison ? > I can give it a shot. The easiest way to test would be to export your versions via a struct xor_block_template. However, the question I have is how do your macros differ from the existing ones in include/asm-generic/xor.h? Can we achieve the same effect by extending the ones in include/asm-generic/xor.h to do up to 8 at a time? Thanks, Dan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html