From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 14 16:10:03 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69A3216A422 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:10:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kono@kth.se) Received: from omega.nanophys.kth.se (daemon.nanophys.kth.se [130.237.35.96]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3847E43D4C for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:09:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kono@kth.se) Received: from omega.nanophys.kth.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by omega.nanophys.kth.se (8.13.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k2EGADaX079836; Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:10:13 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from kono@kth.se) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by omega.nanophys.kth.se (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id k2EGACOh079835; Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:10:12 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from kono@kth.se) X-Authentication-Warning: omega.nanophys.kth.se: kono set sender to kono@kth.se using -f From: Alexander Konovalenko Organization: KTH To: ray@redshift.com Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:10:12 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <200603140740.38388.joao@matik.com.br> <3.0.1.32.20060314034932.00ae9678@pop.redshift.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20060314034932.00ae9678@pop.redshift.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200603141710.12822.kono@kth.se> Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: amd64 slower than i386 on identical AMD 64 system? X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: kono@kth.se List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:10:03 -0000 On Tuesday 14 March 2006 12:49, ray@redshift.com wrote: > > +2 cents mode on... :) what do you mean? > > I'm just coming in on the tail end of the message (missed the previous > stuff). I recently did some benchmarks between AMD64 and i386 (version 5.4) > on the same hardware. I initially saw that the i386 ran faster also. > However, after searching a bit further, I discovered that I had made an > error: the i386 kernel has the SMP stuff compiled into the generic kernel > by default, while the AMD64 (at least on 5.4) does not. It has a separate > kernel file called SMP (as I recall), which adds the SMP line and then does > an include for the rest of the generic kernel config file (or something to > that effect). > > Anyway, if you are testing back and forth, it's easy to forget that and end > up accidently testing an i386 with SMP against an AMD64 without SMP. > > Like I say, I'm coming in on the tail end of the thread, so I might be off > base, but it might be something worth double checking - just to be 100% > sure. > > :-) > > Ray I am just trying to understand, the conclusion is that all people who got i386 benchmark better than amd64 one, on the same X2 hardware, were running not SMP kernel on amd64 and never bothered them self to build and use a proper kernel for their platform? Naively I thought that problem is much serious... :-P /Alexander