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 ([email protected])
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:17:00 +0300 (EEST)
Meelis Roos <[email protected]> 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
> [[email protected]]
>
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:17:00 +0300 (EEST)
> Meelis Roos <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:54:38 +0200
Tomas Szepe <[email protected]> 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.