From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Dec 15 18:00:08 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: stable@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCB1A16A41F
	for <stable@freebsd.org>; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:00:08 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from petefrench@ticketswitch.com)
Received: from mail.ticketswitch.com (mail.ticketswitch.com [194.200.93.188])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34A3943D5F
	for <stable@freebsd.org>; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:00:04 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from petefrench@ticketswitch.com)
Received: from [172.16.1.6] (helo=dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk)
	by mail.ticketswitch.com with esmtp (Exim 4.52 (FreeBSD))
	id 1EmxOE-0006iZ-A2; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:59:38 +0000
Received: from petefrench by dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk with local (Exim
	4.52 (FreeBSD)) id 1EmxOE-00053V-7l; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:59:38 +0000
To: killing@multiplay.co.uk, PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au
In-Reply-To: <20051215173704.GM77268@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>
Message-Id: <E1EmxOE-00053V-7l@dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk>
From: Pete French <petefrench@ticketswitch.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:59:38 +0000
Cc: rerowe@rerowe.com, stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: kernel cpu entries
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:00:08 -0000

> UTSL: The i586 optimised routines were only ever enabled if the CPU
> was identified as a 586.  And these routines have been disabled since
> mid-2001.  See my mail in the "Odd performance problems..."  thread
> for more details.

Got some curiuous results when I tested this today by the way.
I have a twin processor PIII machine. Did a parallel compile on
it. The actuall wall clock time is faster when I add the 586
back in. *but* if you look at the user and system times, the
user time has dropped slightly, but the system tme has gone up
a lot. So its doing more work, but with a slghtly greater amount
of parallelism allow it to finish faster in real time.

Can anyone explain that ????

-pete,.