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. 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" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
