On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 01:20:00PM +0300, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: > > > #include <hallo.h> > > > > * Nikita V. Youshchenko [Sat, Nov 08 2003, 12:39:58PM]: > > > Optimization is a serious issue too. Unlike most user space software, > > > using 386 kernel on modern PC will cause serious performance loose. > > > Especially if you consider mmx/sse/... and SMP issues. Note also that > > > not all drivers are compatible with SMP, etc. > > > > Except of SMP, how exactly does optimisation of the KERNEL CODE help > > you? Your filesystem driver may become 2-3% faster, but the disk won't > > speed up at all, haha. > > Have you ever tried to compare preprocessesd files from kernel/ and arch/ > i386/kernel/ when compiling for 386 and for Athlon? > If not, try to. > They do differ. > Cpu-specific task management, IRQ processing, cache alignment, etc is > being used on higher processors.
Please provide carefully documented evidence of the performance gains that you are claiming, not handwaving. Evidence of a difference is not the same thing; anybody who has any experience with low-level programming knows that differences are as likely to cause a performance loss as they are to cause a gain. More so, in fact; it's easier to make code slower than it is to make it faster. We're all very interested in *real* evidence here, because there hasn't been any in the past. If you don't have any evidence, you can expect people to call bullshit on this. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
