Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:14:15 +0100
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
To: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>,
       William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>,
       Dave McCracken <dmccr@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: 230-objrmap fixes for 2.6.3-mjb2
Message-ID: <20040303161415.GG4922@dualathlon.random>
References: <20040303070933.GB4922@dualathlon.random> <8030000.1078329278@[10.10.2.4]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8030000.1078329278@[10.10.2.4]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 843
Lines: 15

On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 07:54:39AM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> Makes sense. But why would you want 4:4 on opteron? I'm not sure we care
> about the perf for anyone nutty enough to run a 32 bit kernel there ;-)

it would be purerly a theorical benchmark, to see if the current state
of the art technology is hurted more or less by 4:4. If it's hurted less
it's reasonable to assume newer cpus will be hurted less too. However
we'll probably deal with only with a few more generation of 32bit cpus
and it will be only from intel so I agree with you the xeon test is the
most interesting for this.
-
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/