linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Mention Intel Atom in Kconfig.cpu

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:22:22 +0100
From:	"Phil Endecott" <phil_wueww_endecott@...zphil.org>
To:	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Mention Intel Atom in Kconfig.cpu

Arjan van de Ven wrotes:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:02:30 +0300
> Adrian Bunk <bunk <at> kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 09:30:14AM -0400, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:30:51 +0200
> > > Andi Kleen <andi <at> firstfloor.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Core2 instruction set with tune=generic is still the best to
> > > > > set.
> > > > 
> > > > Not sure that is true. These option are mostly for the compiler.
> > > 
> > > exactly, and our benchmarks show that tune=generic is best right now
> > > for Atom. 
> > > (586 scheduling sounds nice, but the pipelines are rather different.
> > > And the benchmarks don't lie..  
> > 
> > That sounds a bit dangerous since tune=generic is documented to
> > change the semantics between gcc versions to better fit more recent
> > CPUs (there's even a small difference between gcc 4.2 and gcc 4.3):
> > 
> 
> reality is that tune=generic avoids the things that are "really bad"
> for a wide generation of cpus; the world of x86 is such that there
> really are many common things that are good for the vast majority of
> the cpus out there (or at least neutral). 
> 
> Future versions of GCC might have a specific ATOM model. Until they do,
> tune=generic is the right thing based on tests over a few gcc versions.
> Yes it's a bit fluid, but no gcc isn't going to suddenly go do stupid
> things for currently mass-sold cpus.

Well, if the Intel experts can't even agree, what hope do I have of 
getting it right :-(   I chose Core2 because I read somewhere that Atom 
was "feature compatible" with it, but of course that doesn't say 
anything about the optimal optimisations.  I trust that someone will 
update Kconfig.cpu with their idea of the right choice for Atom eventually.

(Maybe there should be a way to auto-suggest the right setting for a 
native build based on /proc/cpuinfo?  I think the gcc build process can 
do something like that.)

Cheers,  Phil.




--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/