buggy raid checksumming selection?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
Uhh. correct me if I am wrong, but shouldnt it select the fastest algorithm?
md: raid5 personality registered as nr 4
raid5: measuring checksumming speed
~ 8regs : 2747.600 MB/sec ~ 32regs : 1702.000 MB/sec ~ pIII_sse : 1997.200 MB/sec ~ pII_mmx : 4216.400 MB/sec ~ p5_mmx : 5408.000 MB/sec
raid5: using function: pIII_sse (1997.200 MB/sec)
md: md driver 0.90.0 MAX_MD_DEVS=256, MD_SB_DISKS=27
md: Autodetecting RAID arrays.
~ [events: 00000036]
~ [events: 00000036]
~ [events: 00000036]
md: autorun ...
Linux server1 2.4.25-pre6-athlonxp #1 Tue Jan 20 11:49:48 BRST 2004 i686 unknown unknown GNU/Linux
"-athlonxp" was added by me, just for identification purposes. NO other sources except vanilla 2.4.24 and official 2.4.25-pre6 patch were involved
evaldo@server1:~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 6 model : 8 model name : AMD Athlon(TM) XP 2200+ stepping : 1 cpu MHz : 1800.109 cache size : 256 KB fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 1 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr sse syscall mmxext 3dnowext 3dnow bogomips : 3591.37
root@server1:~# lspci 00:00.0 Host bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8377 [KT400 AGP] Host Bridge 00:01.0 PCI bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8235 PCI Bridge 00:0b.0 Ethernet controller: Macronix, Inc. [MXIC] MX987x5 (rev 20) 00:0c.0 VGA compatible controller: S3 Inc. 86c764/765 [Trio32/64/64V+] (rev 44) 00:10.0 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. USB (rev 80) 00:10.1 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. USB (rev 80) 00:10.2 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. USB (rev 80) 00:10.3 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. USB 2.0 (rev 82) 00:11.0 ISA bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8235 ISA Bridge 00:11.1 IDE interface: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82C586/B/686A/B PIPC Bus Master IDE (rev 06) 00:11.5 Multimedia audio controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8233 AC97 Audio Controller (rev 50) 00:12.0 Ethernet controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT6102 [Rhine-II] (rev 74) root@server1:~#
Thanks
Evaldo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFAESRl5121Y+8pAbIRAk8XAKClylSbg+Sht0lhWrIP9i1cjtb56gCeKBpv ErxCiL4p5wrnAr4e4iEqU8M=
=wkDl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Quoted 1 line
Uhh. correct me if I am wrong, but shouldnt it select the fastest algorithm?
No. This has been brought up on LKML in the past, search the archives for extensive discussion of it.
John.
Quoted 1 line · Evaldo Gardenali
Uhh. correct me if I am wrong, but shouldnt it select the fastest algorithm?
No, if it can choose a function which avoids polluting the cache over one that doesn't, it will. Even if that means slightly less raw throughput
This comes up time after time, maybe we need a printk in that case ?
Dave
Quoted 9 lines · Dave Jones
Quoted 1 line · Evaldo Gardenali
Uhh. correct me if I am wrong, but shouldnt it select the fastest algorithm?
No, if it can choose a function which avoids polluting the cache over one that doesn't, it will. Even if that means slightly less raw throughput
This comes up time after time, maybe we need a printk in that case ?
How about removing the entire output? Is it really needed?
Quoted 9 lines · Nick Piggin
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 1 line
Uhh. correct me if I am wrong, but shouldnt it select the fastest
algorithm?
No, if it can choose a function which avoids polluting the cache over one that doesn't, it will. Even if that means slightly less raw throughput
This comes up time after time, maybe we need a printk in that case ?
How about removing the entire output? Is it really needed?
It's probably on a par with http://www.hadess.net/files/stuff/vpenis.c 8-) You have a point though, it probably is pointless these days.
Dave
Quoted 6 lines · Dave Jones
Quoted 2 lines · Evaldo Gardenali
Uhh. correct me if I am wrong, but shouldnt it select the fastest algorithm?
No, if it can choose a function which avoids polluting the cache over one that doesn't, it will. Even if that means slightly less raw throughput
In this case it is half the throughput. When is it reasonable to use the fast method? If never, why even test it?
Ed