Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Dec 2002 22:21:20 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Start of compat32.h (again) |
| |
Hi!
> Actually, it tends to nullify the bloat cost and then make it few > percent faster... For most of spec2000 modulo two or three cache-bound > tests that are 50% slower :-(. > > How about some test where relocations come into play? > spec2000 is a bad example, it's just crunch code.
time ./configure might be a good test...
> Most systems spend their time running quick small executables over and > over, and in such cases relocation overhead shows up very strongly.
Really? What workload besides configure does many small programs?
> This is why I asked for fork, exec et al. latency figures for 32-bit > vs 64-bit on x86_64 but I've been informed in private email that > nobody can send me numbers due to NDAs. > > I still think making the simple programs like ls, cat, bash et > al. 64-bit in a dist is a bad idea.
Agreed for ls and cat, but I do not think it hurts for bash...
Pavel -- Worst form of spam? Adding advertisment signatures ala sourceforge.net. What goes next? Inserting advertisment *into* email? - 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/
| |