[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RELENG_4 -> 5 -> 6: significant performance regression
- To: Jonathan Noack <noackjr_(_at_)_alumni_(_dot_)_rice_(_dot_)_edu>
- Subject: Re: RELENG_4 -> 5 -> 6: significant performance regression
- From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd_(_at_)_over-yonder_(_dot_)_net>
- Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 07:29:30 -0500
- Cc: Dmitry Pryanishnikov <dmitry_(_at_)_atlantis_(_dot_)_dp_(_dot_)_ua>, freebsd-stable_(_at_)_FreeBSD_(_dot_)_org, Kris Kennaway <kris_(_at_)_obsecurity_(_dot_)_org>
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 03:01:18AM -0400 I heard the voice of
Jonathan Noack, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> Have you tried putting I586_CPU in there? See
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2005-December/020696.html.
As Peter Jeremy mentioned in
<http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2005-December/020731.html>,
the primary suspect (optimized copy/zero routines) would never happen
except on a real 586 CPU, and is totally disabled anyway. See
sys/i386/isa/npx.c line 424-437 (line numbers from rev 1.163, salt to
taste):
#ifdef I586_CPU_XXX
if (cpu_class == CPUCLASS_586 && npx_ex16 && npx_exists &&
[...]
The #ifdef will never match, and even if it did, the if() would never
kick in unless the CPU was actually a 586. The #ifdef has been
disabled since rev 1.95 (2001/04/13).
(This isn't to say that there isn't something else hiding somewhere
that I686_CPU doesn't enable that it should, but just nipping another
round of the copy routine discussion in the bud...)
--
Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd_(_at_)_over-yonder_(_dot_)_net
Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/
On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org"
Visit your host, monkey.org