lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Cyrix setup
    On Sun, 8 Mar 1998, Phil Brutsche wrote:

    > Ah... sorry, but no. What would happen if someone would use some of
    > those performace-enhancing options in the intitialization of the kernel?
    > Either:
    > a) They would work great and the kernel would be super fast
    > or
    > b) They wouldn't work at all and would completely mess things up (lock
    > the machine, interfere with HD operation, I can't recall what the points
    > where against doing this during the last discussion).

    This should be a technical problem not a political one. Rather than
    looking at the opinions that have been expressed you need to look
    at the facts. Questions: Do you know what the default state of a
    6x86 is at power up? Do you consider this state to be satisfactory
    or could a different state be better?

    The general aim should be to have Linux running in the optimal
    safe state by default. I do not consider running with suspend on
    halt off to satisfy that. With it off you run greater risks of
    cooking the CPU if the CPU fan fails (the most common hardware
    failure today - and a cooked CPU usually exhibits "occasional",
    "strange" behaviour...). With it off you are using unnecessary
    power. For an organization with desk loads of, mostly idle PCs,
    this is a measurable cost (not to mention an additional burden
    on air conditioning leading to knock on, but less measurable,
    costs). It's also an environmental no-no. These days environmental
    groups would like us to stop leaving our TVs on stand by and
    switch them off at the wall. Running a modern CPU with no suspend
    on halt enabled is more like leaving a small TV *on* :-).

    Back when I did the non-Intel (nee Cyrix) patch I seem to
    remember a few reports that some options seemed to cause problems
    on a handful of motherboards - but then many things have trouble
    on the odd few junk motherboards. I don't remember anyone having
    problem serious enough to stop them booting. Which brings us
    on to the next point:

    > Besides, what if someone wanted to CHANGE those options? They would have
    > to re-compile their kernel every time. It's so much more convenient to
    > have the initializations in a user-space program.

    Rubbish! You've just answered your own point. If people find they
    don't want the optimal, safe settings they can use something like
    set6x86 to change them.

    Currently we have a situation where the majority *should* be
    changing settings with set6x86. We should have a situation where
    the majority should not need to worry about it. Why should even
    a system administrator need to know about proprietery settings
    of specific CPUs? They shouldn't. Bottom line.

    Mike

    P.S. If you are worried about adding a few bytes of code to change
    the settings (which only needs to be done at boot so it could be
    in the init segment) then you would do better to worry about the
    tables of CPU type description people seem to like adding (which,
    IMHO, tend to be somewhat over specific and which are needed
    thoughout uptime)

    --
    .----------------------------------------------------------------------.
    | Mike Jagdis | Internet: mailto:mike@roan.co.uk |
    | Roan Technology Ltd. | |
    | 54A Peach Street, Wokingham | Telephone: +44 118 989 0403 |
    | RG40 1XG, ENGLAND | Fax: +44 118 989 1195 |
    `----------------------------------------------------------------------'


    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:41    [W:0.022 / U:93.772 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site