MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20161219173123.tyw4gni6i7fnl3uu@pd.tnic>
References: <CAHPT9mY9ic2Nj1svLVWP42zmwGX-fQYh9tJ=ZLwsuj9vL_qAmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161219173123.tyw4gni6i7fnl3uu@pd.tnic>
From: Gustavo da Silva <gustavodasilva@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 15:46:32 -0200
Message-ID: <CAHPT9maFRzoiyLDftYDvMA844X15B=BrnjqF9YEjSKk4z6V_eA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] arch/x86/Kconfig.cpu: Update with new gcc disponible 64bits
 CPU uarchs.
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1291
Lines: 52

hehehe

Thanks, Petkov!

Instead distros, I was thinking in HPC vendors, (SGI, etc), where
those can ship an optmized kernel compiled to the target CPU inside
the HPC equipment, resulting in a better product.

Well, I've reading a HPC equipment vendor documentation explaining
that warrant will be lost if
user compile&install a new kernel for that equipment.

So, make sense the HPC vendor ships a optimized kernel for target HPC customer.

About the proof, HPC vendors would give us an answer.

:)


2016-12-19 15:31 GMT-02:00 Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 03:09:50PM -0200, Gustavo da Silva wrote:
>> Good afternon!
>>
>> Are there reasons to 'Kconfig.cpu' and 'Makefile' not contains the
>> 'gcc -mtune=???'
>> recent options?
>
> This keeps popping up every couple of months. I was wondering when it is
> going to appear again and there you are. :)
>
> Here's a major reason: 99% of the kernels are built with
> -m(arch|tune)=generic. Think distros.
>
> Also, I am still waiting for a proof that CPU-optimized kernels have any
> advantages compared to the =generic ones.
>
> HTH.
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
>
> Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.


-- 
Atenciosamente,

Gustavo da Silva
gustavodasilva@gmail.com