From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264095AbUEHSwk (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 May 2004 14:52:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264097AbUEHSwk (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 May 2004 14:52:40 -0400 Received: from smtp-out4.xs4all.nl ([194.109.24.5]:9740 "EHLO smtp-out4.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264095AbUEHSwi (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 May 2004 14:52:38 -0400 Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 20:52:29 +0200 From: Jurriaan To: "J. Ryan Earl" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: AMD64 and RAID6 Message-ID: <20040508185229.GA869@middle.of.nowhere> Reply-To: Jurriaan References: <409D1D86.6050907@clanhk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <409D1D86.6050907@clanhk.org> X-Message-Flag: Still using Outlook? As you can see, it has some errors. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: J. Ryan Earl Date: Sat, May 08, 2004 at 12:48:54PM -0500 > Why doesn't RAID6 use the int64x4 algorithm in this situation? What is > the motivation of setting the 'prefer field' on the sse algorithms and > not on the integer based algorithms? > IIRC, the sse variants have better cache-behaviour, and are thus almost always selected. Try googling for exact answers, this has come up before. HTH, Jurriaan -- Spock: "Logic, logic, logic... Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end." "STVI:TUC", Stardate 9522.6 Debian (Unstable) GNU/Linux 2.6.6-rc3-mm1 2x6062 bogomips 0.06 0.16