Date: 19 Mar 2001 01:15:40 +0100 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, jhb@FreeBSD.ORG, jake@FreeBSD.ORG, Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie> Subject: Re: Interesting backtrace... Message-ID: <xzpelvu4nrn.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: Bruce Evans's message of "Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:59:55 %2B1100 (EST)" References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0103191051110.32350-100000@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> writes: > K6-2's aren't really i586's and i586_bzero should never be used for > them (generic bzero is faster), Wrong. I fixed machdep.c to compute and print the bandwidth correctly: des@des ~% egrep '(CPU|bzero)' /var/run/dmesg.boot CPU: AMD-K6(tm) 3D processor (350.80-MHz 586-class CPU) i586_bzero() bandwidth = 1056759 kBps bzero() bandwidth = 124211 kBps > i586_bzero gets used because negative bandwidths are significantly > smaller than positive ones, Uh, Bruce, we pick the method that gives the *highest* bandwidth, not the lowest. > so plain bzero is faster according to this > message, There you go contradicting yourself... Anyway, the bug is not K6-specific - I guess the reason why we're only seeing it on K6's is that they're the only 586-class CPUs that are fast enough to still be in widespread use. Except I just remembered I have a dual Pentium box I use for SMP work, but haven't booted in several weeks... because it keeps crashing... with a smashed stack. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpelvu4nrn.fsf>