On Sonntag, 2. Januar 2022 01:03:44 CET Song Liu wrote: > We need more explanation/documentation about 0 vs. 1 vs. 2 priority. In the commit message? in the code? this is basically a copy&paste of the same concept and code from a few lines below the diff, struct raid6_recov_calls which works the same way and currently has no documentation at all. want me to add to both then? > > if ((*algo)->valid && !(*algo)->valid()) > > If the module load time is really critical, maybe we can run all > ->valid() calls first and > find the highest valid priority. Then, we only run the benchmark for > these algorithms. thats exactly what the code always did. previously all x86_64 specific implementations (be it SSE1/SSE2/AVX2/AVX512) all had the same priority level 1, over the default priority level 0 for the implemented-in-C int*.c routines. with this change, we have one more level p refering AVX* over the rest, so that we skip testing SSE1/SSE2 (similary to how the integer implementations have always been skipped before). > Does this make sense? the valid call is not probing anything by itself. it just iterates over a small array of functions and stops executing benchmarks for those that have lower priority ranks. so there isn't really a lot of cycles to win by changing the execution order here. I would assume it will actually slow things down as we have to store the valid() result for the 2nd iteration. Greetings, Dirk
