DSP optimization

historical

Hi Thomas,

> From: Thomas Tsou <tom at tsou.cc>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Alexander Chemeris
> <alexander.chemeris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think compile time detection is more appropriate.

Yes, that's fine for now.

> /proc/cpuinfo parsing scripts I've seen have been prone to breakage.
> If you have a really good one, let me know. I usually prefer to run
> configure checks against the actual instruction, but that can get
> messy with a lot of checks. Anyhow, I'm not worrying about this now.

Sorry, I'm not aware of any.

>> What repository will you push at? We need to have at least master
>> branch and dual-channel branch working with the optimizations. And I
>> believe everyone would be happy to see optimizations in the
>> libosmocore for the benefit of other projects as well. I don't foresee
>> any issues with a slight change in the API of libosmocore if it is
>> justified - just send an RFC/patch to the OpenBSC mailing list and it
>> will be reviewed.
>
> Non-Viterbi changes are sigProc.cpp changes only, so they are not
> branch-specific - they will probably merge into the oldest available
> OpenBTS releases. The Viterbi changes merge into Andreas's branch,
> which is a very large change. For now, somebody needs to write it,
> which is why I'm considering making the interfaces match.

Could you publish them for review? It's hard to talk about a code
without looking at it.

> Attached are the standalone unit test cases for SSE 4.2. As previously
> mentioned, Atom needs SSE3 only. I'll add the ifdefs for those
> shortly. I don't know if there's an appropriate repository for these
> right now - linking libosmocore from the transceiver for comparison
> purposes only seems silly. I just generated a temporary tarball for
> the time being.

Ok, waiting for the updated version to test it on my Core 2 Duo and Atoms.

--
Regards,
Alexander Chemeris.
CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ООО УмРадио
http://fairwaves.ru