On 18:35, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Andre Noll wrote: > > On 11:39, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> Yes, I believe it would be easier than having dynamically allocated > >> arrays. Dynamically generated arrays using static memory allocations > >> (bss) is one thing, but that would only reduce size of the module on > >> disk, which I don't think anyone considers a problem. > > > > We would save 64K of RAM in the raid5-only case if we'd defer the > > allocation of the multiplication table until the first raid6 array > > is about to be started. > > Yes, and we'd have to access it through a pointer for the rest of eternity. True. You put a lot of effort into raid6 to make it fast, so you know best how much that would slow down the code. If using a pointer instead of an array would have a measurable impact on the raid6 performance, then we should indeed avoid using dynamically allocated memory for the table. As this slowdown likely depends on the arch, it is not easy to measure. So I guess the best way to decrease memory usage for the raid5-only case is to put the raid6-specific code into a separate module as you suggested earlier. Thanks Andre -- The only person who always got his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
