linux-kernel - Re: Specific support for Intel Atom architecture

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 3 May 2009 13:08:45 +0200
From:	Tobias Doerffel <tobias.doerffel@...il.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Specific support for Intel Atom architecture

Am Sonntag, 3. Mai 2009 08:48:54 schrieb H. Peter Anvin:
> Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >> $(call cc-option,-march=atom,-march=i686)
> >
> > if it's an in-order architecture, wouldn't it be better to tune for i386
> > or i486 instead ?
>
> Possibly.  It would be worth measuring.
How would one do that (never benchmarked kernel stuff before)?

Regards,

Tobias


Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)