Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Jan 2006 14:23:01 -0600 | From | Jeffrey Hundstad <> | Subject | 64-bit vs 32-bit userspace/kernel benchmark? Was: Athlon 64 X2 cpuinfo oddities |
| |
Jesper Juhl wrote:
>On 1/10/06, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote: > > >>On Tuesday 10 January 2006 03:12, Jesper Juhl wrote: >> >> ...
>>Ah - how legacy. >> >> >> >Yeah, but since my distro of choice is 32bit only and I don't much >feel like porting it myself or using an unofficial port (slamd64) I'm >sticking with a 32bit userspace. And as long as userspace is pure >32bit there doesn't seem to be much point in building a 64bit kernel. >And I only have 2GB of RAM, so I don't have a use for the larger 64bit >address space. >I also don't run any apps that do a lot of math on >32bit numbers, so >there's not much gain there either. >I guess I would bennefit from the extra GPR's, but then I would at the >same time loose a bit by all pointers being 64bit - both lose some >disk space due to larger binaries and I'd have increased memory use >and less efficient L1/L2 cache use. > >I don't think there would actually be much gain for me in switching to >a 64bit kernel with a 64bit userspace atm. >But if I'm wrong I'd of course love to hear about it :) > > >
Has anyone done any actual benchmark tests that show 64-bit vs 32-bit environments/distributions with Athlon64 processors. If so, I love to see the results. I too elected to stick with 32-bit, using the same reasoning/guessing above.
-- Jeffrey Hundstad
- 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/
| |