From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Dec 14 0:27: 4 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [216.33.66.196]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2502137B438; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:26:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id AAB7881E11; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 02:26:51 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 02:26:51 -0600 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Kris Kennaway Cc: Peter Wemm , Poul-Henning Kamp , mitko@rila.bg, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Performance issue Message-ID: <20011214022651.I79896@elvis.mu.org> References: <72360.1007898170@critter.freebsd.dk> <20011209232328.31DC43810@overcee.netplex.com.au> <20011213201715.C84382@citusc17.usc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20011213201715.C84382@citusc17.usc.edu>; from kris@FreeBSD.ORG on Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 08:17:15PM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Kris Kennaway [011213 22:17] wrote: > On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 03:23:28PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: > > Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > > > > > There are many effects that could cause this, for instance if FreeBSD > > > manages to align things differently in relation to the CPU cache you > > > could get some very interesting waste of time that way. > > > > > > Based on the data you show me, I can't really say that something is > > > wrong or right either way. > > > > One thing that Linux does that we do not do is that they have different > > versions of libc compiled specifically for different cpu types, and at > > boot time set the correct paths. eg: /lib/i386/libc.so.6.whatever > > > > This means that Linux's glibc is using an i686 optimized bzero(), but > > the FreeBSD one is using an i386 optimized bzero(). > > This could easily be hung off CPUTYPE like we do for the asm code in > OpenSSL, right? That's not the point, you're proposing a static configuration which i honestly don't like. What makes more sense is to teach the dynamic linker to look for archetecture specific subdirectories in order to dynamically link in a shared object more suited to the running CPU, not the CPU it was compiled on. -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' http://www.morons.org/rants/gpl-harmful.php3 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message