From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 10 20:59:28 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F26A516A4D0 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 20:59:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from vette.gigo.com (vette.gigo.com [216.218.228.114]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E54ED43FE0 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 20:59:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from lioux@brturbo.com) Received: from 200.101.111.208 (200-101-111-208.bsace705.dsl.brasiltelecom.net.br [200.101.111.208]) by vette.gigo.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 331E4579C for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 20:49:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 26876 invoked by uid 1001); 11 Nov 2003 04:07:35 -0000 Message-ID: <20031111040735.26875.qmail@exxodus.fedaykin.here> Received: (qmail 74642 invoked from network); 26 Oct 2003 12:17:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (unknown) by unknown with SMTP; 26 Oct 2003 12:17:34 -0000 Received: from pop3.uol.com.br by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-6.2.5) for lioux-freebsd@localhost (single-drop); Sun, 26 Oct 2003 10:17:12 -0200 (BRST) Received: from peart.uol.com.br (172.26.5.199) by mtauol7.mail.sys.intranet (5.1.071) id 3EDB5C0C01D709C7 for lioux-freebsd@uol.com.br; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 08:53:41 -0300 Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [216.136.204.119]) by storm14.uol.com.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9275D9FA for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 09:53:39 -0200 (BRST) Received: from hub.freebsd.org (hub.freebsd.org [216.136.204.18]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC27656C4C for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 03:53:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-src-committers@FreeBSD.org) Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 31A9C16A523; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 03:53:33 -0800 (PST) Delivered-To: lioux@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 538) id 27BB116A4C1; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 03:53:32 -0800 (PST) Delivered-To: src-committers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B0B216A4BF; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 03:53:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from herring.nlsystems.com (mailgate.nlsystems.com [80.177.232.242]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1203643FDF; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 03:52:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Received: from [10.0.0.2] (herring.nlsystems.com [10.0.0.2]) h9QBqjpA069833; Sun, 26 Oct 2003 11:52:45 GMT (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) From: Doug Rabson To: Peter Wemm In-Reply-To: <20031026064145.18F0E2A8D5@canning.wemm.org> References: <20031026064145.18F0E2A8D5@canning.wemm.org> Content-Type: text/plain Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on herring.nlsystems.com Sender: owner-src-committers@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG cc: Jeff Roberson cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/i386 pmap.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 04:59:28 -0000 X-Original-Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 11:52:45 +0000 X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 04:59:28 -0000 On Sun, 2003-10-26 at 06:41, Peter Wemm wrote: > Jeff Roberson wrote: > > On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Peter Wemm wrote: > > > Wow, pentium4 sucks. Yes, I agree then, we should revert the change. > I'll do it. > > > > Intel looks more disappointing every day. > > Well, think of their optimization goals... The pentium4 was designed for > two things.. 1) to increase MHz, since thats all dumbass customers and > sales droids understand, and 2) to increase game framerate benchmarks. > Anything that didn't contribute to that goal and consumed transistors > started losing. The trick is to find some way to make intel interested in your problems (e.g. change a large site from using intel processors to amd). When the marketing people start to care about an application, the technical people start to collect instruction traces to use for optimising the next generation. In the mid 90s, 486 processors had terrible floating point performance and intel didn't much care. Their instruction traces showed that the applications they cared about (mainly word and excel) didn't use floating point much. As soon as people started trying to use floating point more intensively for games software, intel started profiling and optimising for it and these days, their floating point performance is reasonable for all applications (not just games). The trick, I guess, is to make the right kind of case. If, for instance, the engineers developing Longhorn started telling Intel that AMD processors could e.g. context switch ten times faster than P4s and this would affect the performance of some bogus Longhorn feature, then I imagine things might change.