[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55D1BED4.4040808@c-s.fr>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:00:36 +0200
From: leroy christophe <christophe.leroy@....fr>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
CC: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] powerpc32: optimise csum_partial() loop
Le 17/08/2015 12:56, leroy christophe a écrit :
>
>
> Le 07/08/2015 01:25, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
>> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 05:45:45PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> If this makes performance non-negligibly worse on other 32-bit
>>> chips, and is
>>> an important improvement on 8xx, then we can use an ifdef since 8xx
>>> already
>>> requires its own kernel build. I'd prefer to see a benchmark
>>> showing that it
>>> actually does make things worse on those chips, though.
>> And I'd like to see a benchmark that shows it *does not* hurt
>> performance
>> on most chips, and does improve things on 8xx, and by how much. But it
>> isn't *me* who has to show that, it is not my patch.
> Ok, following this discussion I made some additional measurement and
> it looks like:
> * There is almost no change on the 885
> * There is a non negligeable degradation on the 8323 (19.5 tb ticks
> instead of 15.3)
>
> Thanks for pointing this out, I think my patch is therefore not good.
>
Oops, I was talking about my other past, the one that was to optimise
ip_csum_fast.
I still have to measure csum_partial
Christophe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists