On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:45:35AM +1100, Adam Carter wrote: > If you havent already, I would first verify that its actually CPU bound, > before changing CFLAGs and recompiling everything. So take a look at top, > vmstat, mpstat etc when you're noticing slowness. If it is truely CPU bound > and you're going to recompile everything, you could consider upgrading to > the ~ version of gcc first, with the assumption that the optimizations > maybe be better. However, my gut feeling is that you wont get much or any > improvement over your current CFLAGs. > > The i686 and -Os ideas are interesting. See if you can find any benchmarks. > > Also - try diffing the kernel .configs - maybe you missed something > important on the slow system.
Interestingly, I did carry out tests when I received my netbook in order to decide between 32 and 64 bit. I did the same tests when I migrated my big laptop from 32 to 64 bit, but I can't remember the results for the netbook anymore except for LUKS performance: the aforementioned hdparm -t on my encrypted /home amounts to 18 MB/s on 32 bit, but reaches almost 30 MB/s with 64 bit. In the end, I went for a 64 bit kernel to increase some computing performance, and 32 bit for all the rest for memory reasons. The only additional "cost" is that I have to maintain a 64 bit toolchain via crossdev. -- Gruß | Greetings | Qapla’ Please do not share anything from, with or about me with any Facebook service. Arrogance is the art of being proud of one’s own stupidity.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
