* raid5 autoselecting a slower checksum function
@ 2003-07-28 15:17 Meelis Roos
2003-07-28 15:30 ` Bruce Harada
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Meelis Roos @ 2003-07-28 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
This is 2.6.0-test2 on a Celeron 900:
raid5: measuring checksumming speed
8regs : 1640.000 MB/sec
8regs_prefetch: 1316.000 MB/sec
32regs : 824.000 MB/sec
32regs_prefetch: 788.000 MB/sec
pIII_sse : 1744.000 MB/sec
pII_mmx : 2244.000 MB/sec
p5_mmx : 2400.000 MB/sec
raid5: using function: pIII_sse (1744.000 MB/sec)
Why doesn't it select p5_mmx if it is 37% faster than pIII_sse?
--
Meelis Roos (mroos@linux.ee)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: raid5 autoselecting a slower checksum function
2003-07-28 15:17 raid5 autoselecting a slower checksum function Meelis Roos
@ 2003-07-28 15:30 ` Bruce Harada
2003-07-28 20:54 ` Tomas Szepe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Harada @ 2003-07-28 15:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Meelis Roos; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:17:00 +0300 (EEST)
Meelis Roos <mroos@linux.ee> wrote:
<snip>
> Why doesn't it select p5_mmx if it is 37% faster than pIII_sse?
This has come up before - see :
http://hypermail.idiosynkrasia.net/linux-kernel/archived/2003/week01/1894.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: raid5 autoselecting a slower checksum function
2003-07-28 15:30 ` Bruce Harada
@ 2003-07-28 20:54 ` Tomas Szepe
2003-07-29 12:33 ` Bruce Harada
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Tomas Szepe @ 2003-07-28 20:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bruce Harada; +Cc: Meelis Roos, linux-kernel
> [bharada@coral.ocn.ne.jp]
>
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:17:00 +0300 (EEST)
> Meelis Roos <mroos@linux.ee> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Why doesn't it select p5_mmx if it is 37% faster than pIII_sse?
>
> This has come up before - see :
>
> http://hypermail.idiosynkrasia.net/linux-kernel/archived/2003/week01/1894.html
Fair enough, but wouldn't it be more appropriate if the kernel printed
a message like "SSE present, good. No need to try the other checksumming
methods" in this case?
--
Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: raid5 autoselecting a slower checksum function
2003-07-28 20:54 ` Tomas Szepe
@ 2003-07-29 12:33 ` Bruce Harada
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Harada @ 2003-07-29 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tomas Szepe; +Cc: mroos, linux-kernel
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:54:38 +0200
Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com> wrote:
> Fair enough, but wouldn't it be more appropriate if the kernel printed
> a message like "SSE present, good. No need to try the other checksumming
> methods" in this case?
As I recall, someone actually posted a small patch to indicate that - I assume
it got dropped or lost. Certainly, the current message is rather confusing.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-07-29 12:33 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-07-28 15:17 raid5 autoselecting a slower checksum function Meelis Roos
2003-07-28 15:30 ` Bruce Harada
2003-07-28 20:54 ` Tomas Szepe
2003-07-29 12:33 ` Bruce Harada
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®