> On Mar 27, 2017, at 13:58, Richard Cochran <richardcoch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:18:47PM -0700, Denny Page wrote: >> I think that on average, the Vendor’s numbers are likely to be more >> accurate than anyone else’s. The concept that independent software >> implementations are going to somehow obtain and maintain better >> numbers is too much of a stretch. > > But you just said that Intel's first published numbers were wrong. If > the vendors would have published accurate information, then you would > not have to have made your own measurements, and the drivers could > simply use the correct values. > > Sadly, this will never happen. The vendor's track record is 100% > fail. The apps will always need to implement their own, truly correct > values. Having "almost correct" values hard coded into the drivers > only makes things worse.
Yes, Intel’s original numbers were wrong. But that doesn’t mean that other’s people’s numbers are going to be particularly better. Even Intel’s original numbers were far better than most will be able to achieve. But let’s bring this back to the driver. If someone conducts tests and believes that they have better numbers than currently used in the driver, let them come forward with their information and propose a kernel patch. No harm in that at all. And much easier than brining a patch for dozens of applications. Denny
