On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 09:48 -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Heinz Mauelshagen <heinzm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 17:38 -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:45 AM, <heinzm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > From: Heinz Mauelshagen <heinzm@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > > >> > Neil et al., > >> > > >> > finally got around to creating a followup (interim) patch, which allows > >> > for changing the xor algorithn at runtime via the message interface, > >> > 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. Thanks. > The easiest way to test would be to export your > versions via a struct xor_block_template. Yes, but my recent dm-raid45 patch on dm-devel allows for selection of the xor routine being used and its parameters.. Fiddling the macros into xor_block_template structs would allow for testing them with other callers... > However, the question I > have is how do your macros differ from the existing ones in > include/asm-generic/xor.h? Those xor data from multiple blocks via sequenced single xor operations whereas mine does them in one go. > Can we achieve the same effect by > extending the ones in include/asm-generic/xor.h to do up to 8 at a > time? I don't think so but that's one question to answer. Thanks, Heinz > > Thanks, > Dan > > -- > dm-devel mailing list > dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel