Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 03:36:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 03:36:49 -0500 Received: from 169.imtp.Ilyichevsk.Odessa.UA ([195.66.192.169]:49163 "EHLO Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 03:36:47 -0500 Message-Id: <200212110829.gBB8Tja05013@Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Denis Vlasenko Reply-To: vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua To: Daniel Egger , Dave Jones Subject: Re: Why does C3 CPU downgrade in kernel 2.4.20? Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:19:23 -0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: Joseph , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" References: <009f01c2a000$f38885d0$3716a8c0@taipei.via.com.tw> <20021210055215.GA9124@suse.de> <1039504941.30881.10.camel@sonja> In-Reply-To: <1039504941.30881.10.camel@sonja> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 924 Lines: 25 On 10 December 2002 05:22, Daniel Egger wrote: > Am Die, 2002-12-10 um 06.52 schrieb Dave Jones: > > I believe someone (Jeff Garzik?) benchmarked gcc code generation, > > and the C3 executed code scheduled for a 486 faster than it did for > > -m586 > > I'm not sure about the alignment flags. I've been meaning to look > > into that myself... > > Interesting. I have no clue about which C3 you're talking about here > but a VIA Ezra has all 686 instructions including cmov and thus > optimising for PPro works best for me. > > Prolly I would have to do more benchmarking to find out about > aligment advantages. I heard cmovs are microcoded in Centaurs. s...l...o...w... -- vda - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/