From: leroy christophe <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>,
Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] powerpc32: optimise csum_partial() loop
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:00:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55D1BED4.4040808@c-s.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55D1BDF0.4090008@c-s.fr>
Le 17/08/2015 12:56, leroy christophe a écrit :
>
>
> Le 07/08/2015 01:25, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
>> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 05:45:45PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> If this makes performance non-negligibly worse on other 32-bit
>>> chips, and is
>>> an important improvement on 8xx, then we can use an ifdef since 8xx
>>> already
>>> requires its own kernel build. I'd prefer to see a benchmark
>>> showing that it
>>> actually does make things worse on those chips, though.
>> And I'd like to see a benchmark that shows it *does not* hurt
>> performance
>> on most chips, and does improve things on 8xx, and by how much. But it
>> isn't *me* who has to show that, it is not my patch.
> Ok, following this discussion I made some additional measurement and
> it looks like:
> * There is almost no change on the 885
> * There is a non negligeable degradation on the 8323 (19.5 tb ticks
> instead of 15.3)
>
> Thanks for pointing this out, I think my patch is therefore not good.
>
Oops, I was talking about my other past, the one that was to optimise
ip_csum_fast.
I still have to measure csum_partial
Christophe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-17 11:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-05 13:29 [PATCH v2 0/2] powerpc32: Optimise csum_partial() Christophe Leroy
2015-08-05 13:29 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] powerpc32: optimise a few instructions in csum_partial() Christophe Leroy
2015-08-05 13:29 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] powerpc32: optimise csum_partial() loop Christophe Leroy
2015-08-06 0:30 ` Segher Boessenkool
2015-08-06 2:31 ` Scott Wood
2015-08-06 4:39 ` Segher Boessenkool
2015-08-06 22:45 ` Scott Wood
2015-08-06 23:25 ` Segher Boessenkool
2015-08-17 10:56 ` leroy christophe
2015-08-17 11:00 ` leroy christophe [this message]
2015-08-17 13:05 ` leroy christophe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=55D1BED4.4040808@c-s.fr \
--to=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=scottwood@freescale.com \
--cc=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).