Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 07:32:33 -0700 From: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca> To: Glendon Gross <gross@clones.com> Cc: Michel Talon <michel@lpthe.jussieu.fr>, "freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG" <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: "Malloc type lacks magic" show-stopper solved Message-ID: <200010281432.e9SEWmP08908@cwsys.cwsent.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 27 Oct 2000 06:36:58 PDT." <Pine.LNX.4.20.0010270634450.6309-100000@mail.clones.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.LNX.4.20.0010270634450.6309-100000@mail.clones.com>, Glendon G ross writes: > > This reminds me of another issue I have wondered about for some time. > Are there major advantages to be gained by disabling support for other > architectures in the kernel build file? I have been routinely turning off > 386 and 486 support, thinking this would speed things up... but I'm not > sure of the soundness of this logic. Does anyone know if disabling > support for other CPU's increases performance? There are sections of code in the kernel specific to a particular CPU. By specifying the CPU, you ifdef out any code specific to other CPU's in the kernel making it slightly smaller and faster. For today's PII's and PIII's I don't think that the additional instructions make much of a noticeable difference in the speed of the machine, however on older P120's, 486's, and 386's, the additional instructions would have more of a noticeable impact. Regards, Phone: (250)387-8437 Cy Schubert Fax: (250)387-5766 Team Leader, Sun/DEC Team Internet: Cy.Schubert@osg.gov.bc.ca Open Systems Group, ITSD, ISTA Province of BC To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200010281432.e9SEWmP08908>