From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: ling.ma@intel.com, hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] [X86] performance improvement for memcpy_64.S by fast string.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:18:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091108101856.GA7409@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87my2z7g1b.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
* Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
> ling.ma@intel.com writes:
>
> > Intel Nehalem improves the performance of REP strings significantly
> > over previous microarchitectures in several ways:
>
> The problem is that it's not necessarily a win on older CPUs to do it
> this way.
I'm wondering, why are you writing such obtruse comments to Intel
submitted patches? I know it and you know it too which older CPUs have a
slow string implementation, and you know the rough order of magnitude
and significance as well and you have ideas how to solve it all.
Instead you injected just the minimal amount of information into this
thread to derail this patch you can see a problem with, but you didnt at
all explain your full opinion openly and honestly and you certainly
didnt give enough information to allow Ling Ma to act upon your opinion
with maximum efficiency.
I.e. you are not being helpful at all here and you are obstructing Intel
folks actively, making their workflow and progress as inefficient as you
possibly can. Why are you doing that?
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-08 10:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-06 9:41 [PATCH RFC] [X86] performance improvement for memcpy_64.S by fast string ling.ma
2009-11-06 16:51 ` Andi Kleen
2009-11-08 10:18 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2009-11-06 17:07 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-11-06 19:26 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-11-09 7:24 ` Ma, Ling
2009-11-09 7:36 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-11-09 8:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-11 7:05 ` Ma, Ling
2009-11-11 7:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-11 7:57 ` Ma, Ling
2009-11-11 23:21 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-11-12 2:12 ` Ma, Ling
2009-11-11 20:34 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-11-11 22:39 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-11-12 4:28 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-11-12 4:49 ` Ma, Ling
2009-11-12 5:26 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-11-12 7:42 ` Ma, Ling
2009-11-12 9:54 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-11-12 12:16 ` Pavel Machek
2009-11-13 7:33 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-13 8:04 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-11-13 8:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-09 9:26 ` Andi Kleen
2009-11-09 16:41 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-11-09 18:54 ` Andi Kleen
2009-11-09 22:36 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-11-12 12:16 ` Pavel Machek
2009-11-13 5:33 ` Ma, Ling
2009-11-13 6:04 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-11-13 7:23 ` Ma, Ling
2009-11-13 7:30 ` H. Peter Anvin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20091108101856.GA7409@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=ling.ma@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.