[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090504063258.00d035b2@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 06:32:58 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Tobias Doerffel <tobias.doerffel@...il.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
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
On Mon, 4 May 2009 15:14:57 +0200
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Tobias Doerffel <tobias.doerffel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > 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)?
>
> A standard method is to run lmbench and compare the results -
> lmbench has a built-in 'report comparison between two runs' feature.
well... you're normally REALLY hard pressed to measure compiler
differences this way.....
normally compiler options get benchmarked using speccpu and the like....
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists