From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Nov 25 08:36:09 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C145E16A407
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>;
	Sat, 25 Nov 2006 08:36:09 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz)
Received: from eva.fit.vutbr.cz (eva.fit.vutbr.cz [147.229.176.14])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF9F643D46
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>;
	Sat, 25 Nov 2006 08:35:22 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz)
Received: from eva.fit.vutbr.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eva.fit.vutbr.cz (envelope-from xdivac02@eva.fit.vutbr.cz)
	(8.13.8/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kAP8a5Es017740
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Sat, 25 Nov 2006 09:36:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from xdivac02@localhost)
	by eva.fit.vutbr.cz (8.13.8/8.13.3/Submit) id kAP8a5o8017739;
	Sat, 25 Nov 2006 09:36:05 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 09:36:05 +0100
From: Divacky Roman <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>
To: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net>
Message-ID: <20061125083605.GA17350@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>
References: <4558E3DC.6080800@samsco.org>
	<200611200454.kAK4sdat083568@lava.sentex.ca>
	<7.1.0.9.0.20061120160757.14d4a728@sentex.net>
	<200611220247.kAM2l9JP095066@lava.sentex.ca>
	<20061122130947.GM20405@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org>
	<200611231652.kANGqJsr005016@lava.sentex.ca>
	<1164356894.4306.1.camel@massimo.datacode.it>
	<200611242027.kAOKRYZg012113@lava.sentex.ca>
	<20061124210305.GA49228@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>
	<200611242117.kAOLHuBP012313@lava.sentex.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200611242117.kAOLHuBP012313@lava.sentex.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 147.229.176.14
Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: em forwarding performance (was Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch
X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance/tuning <freebsd-performance.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 08:36:09 -0000

On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 04:18:03PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> At 04:03 PM 11/24/2006, Divacky Roman wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 03:27:40PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> >> At 03:28 AM 11/24/2006, Massimo Lusetti wrote:
> >> >On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 11:52 -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I might give OpenBSD a quick try as a reference.
> >> >
> >> >That would be very interesting.
> >>
> >> OpenBSD 4.0 i386 panics on boot.
> >>
> >> I also posted some results with PMC compiled into the kernel
> >>
> >> ipfw compiled into the kernel, with 1 rule
> >>
> >> http://www.tancsa.com/pmc/
> >
> >I see generic_bzero/bcopy used quite often. why dont you define
> >cpu             I586_CPU
> >in your kernel config?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I had
> 
> cpu             I486_CPU
> cpu             I586_CPU
> cpu             I686_CPU
 
hm.. now I am confused. the rule is that having I586_CPU improves
performance because optimized bzero/bcopy is included (its not
included if you only have I686_CPU).

I dont understand why the generic version is used.