* Re: [gentoo-user] cflags for atom
2013-10-21 14:09 [gentoo-user] cflags for atom Silvio Siefke
@ 2013-10-21 14:33 ` thegeezer
2013-10-21 15:08 ` Silvio Siefke
2013-10-21 15:15 ` Frank Steinmetzger
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: thegeezer @ 2013-10-21 14:33 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1439 bytes --]
On 10/21/2013 03:09 PM, Silvio Siefke wrote:
> Hello,
>
> on my netbook Acer Aspire One D255 is running Gentoo amd64 but its so slow.
> I have Samsung NC10 and there is running Gentoo better and that i understand
> not so really.
>
> What Cflags i should use, at moment i use
>
> CFLAGS="-O2 -march=atom -mtune=atom -mssse3 -mfpmath=sse -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe"
> CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}"
> CHOST="x86_64-pc-linux-gnu"
> MAKEOPTS="-j3"
>
> processor : 0
> vendor_id : GenuineIntel
> cpu family : 6
> model : 28
> model name : Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU N550 @ 1.50GHz
> stepping : 10
> microcode : 0x107
> cpu MHz : 1500.000
> cache size : 512 KB
> physical id : 0
> siblings : 4
> core id : 0
> cpu cores : 2
> apicid : 0
> initial apicid : 0
> fpu : yes
> fpu_exception : yes
> cpuid level : 10
> wp : yes
> flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts nopl aperfmperf pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm movbe lahf_lm dtherm
> bogomips : 2992.64
> clflush size : 64
> cache_alignment : 64
> address sizes : 32 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
> power management:
>
> Thats from 0 to 3. It were nice when someone can help.
>
>
> Thank you & Good Day
> Silvio
>
http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/CFLAGS
use native - it does the working out for you if GCC is new
CFLAGS="-march=native -O2 -pipe"
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1899 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-user] cflags for atom
2013-10-21 14:09 [gentoo-user] cflags for atom Silvio Siefke
2013-10-21 14:33 ` thegeezer
@ 2013-10-21 15:15 ` Frank Steinmetzger
2013-10-21 16:09 ` Silvio Siefke
2013-10-21 15:20 ` Joseph
2013-10-22 0:31 ` Alecks Gates
3 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Frank Steinmetzger @ 2013-10-21 15:15 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 693 bytes --]
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 04:09:11PM +0200, Silvio Siefke wrote:
> Hello,
>
> on my netbook Acer Aspire One D255 is running Gentoo amd64 but its so slow.
> I have Samsung NC10 and there is running Gentoo better and that i understand
> not so really.
Do they have different amounts of RAM installed? My netbook ran OK with
1 GB, but was very limited, especially once Firefox was loaded. 2 GB
should be the minimum if you use a big desktop.
What about HDD throughput? (test it with hdparm -t /dev/sda)
--
Gruß | Greetings | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me with any Facebook service.
“An itching nose must be scratched.” – Kosh (Star Wreck)
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] cflags for atom
2013-10-21 15:15 ` Frank Steinmetzger
@ 2013-10-21 16:09 ` Silvio Siefke
2013-10-21 16:40 ` Frank Steinmetzger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Silvio Siefke @ 2013-10-21 16:09 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Hello,
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:15:30 +0200 Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@gmx.de>
wrote:
> Do they have different amounts of RAM installed? My netbook ran OK
> with 1 GB, but was very limited, especially once Firefox was loaded.
> 2 GB should be the minimum if you use a big desktop.
No its only 1 GB. I use XFCE4 and never has use more as 800 MB so what
i see with htop.
> What about HDD throughput? (test it with hdparm -t /dev/sda)
[18:05:44][ Akku: 29% ][root@gentoomobile:~]# hdparm -t /dev/sda
/dev/sda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 242 MB in 3.02 seconds = 80.25 MB/sec
Thank you & Greetings
Silvio
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] cflags for atom
2013-10-21 16:09 ` Silvio Siefke
@ 2013-10-21 16:40 ` Frank Steinmetzger
2013-10-21 16:54 ` housegregory299
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Frank Steinmetzger @ 2013-10-21 16:40 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1333 bytes --]
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 06:09:58PM +0200, Silvio Siefke wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:15:30 +0200 Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@gmx.de>
> wrote:
>
> > Do they have different amounts of RAM installed? My netbook ran OK
> > with 1 GB, but was very limited, especially once Firefox was loaded.
> > 2 GB should be the minimum if you use a big desktop.
>
> No its only 1 GB. I use XFCE4 and never has use more as 800 MB so what
> i see with htop.
Well, with XFCE it should be enough, though having a lot of free RAM
means more capacity for the filesystem cache to speed up reads. But the
way you decribe the sluggishness, it must be more than read times.
Hm... you could compare CPU performance... simple examples are the 7zip
benchmark (`7z b`) or of course compiling a bigger package like gcc.
> > What about HDD throughput? (test it with hdparm -t /dev/sda)
>
> [18:05:44][ Akku: 29% ][root@gentoomobile:~]# hdparm -t /dev/sda
> /dev/sda:
> Timing buffered disk reads: 242 MB in 3.02 seconds = 80.25 MB/sec
That looks normal, my Pro laptop from 6 years ago reaches around 75 MB/s,
as does my netbook (Atom N450).
--
Gruß | Greetings | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me with any Facebook service.
Please notify me if you did not receive this message.
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] cflags for atom
2013-10-21 16:40 ` Frank Steinmetzger
@ 2013-10-21 16:54 ` housegregory299
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: housegregory299 @ 2013-10-21 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
В письме от 21 октября 2013 18:40:27 пользователь Frank Steinmetzger написал:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 06:09:58PM +0200, Silvio Siefke wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:15:30 +0200 Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@gmx.de>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Do they have different amounts of RAM installed? My netbook ran OK
> > > with 1 GB, but was very limited, especially once Firefox was loaded.
> > > 2 GB should be the minimum if you use a big desktop.
> >
> > No its only 1 GB. I use XFCE4 and never has use more as 800 MB so what
> > i see with htop.
>
> Well, with XFCE it should be enough, though having a lot of free RAM
> means more capacity for the filesystem cache to speed up reads. But the
> way you decribe the sluggishness, it must be more than read times.
>
> Hm... you could compare CPU performance... simple examples are the 7zip
> benchmark (`7z b`) or of course compiling a bigger package like gcc.
>
> > > What about HDD throughput? (test it with hdparm -t /dev/sda)
> >
> > [18:05:44][ Akku: 29% ][root@gentoomobile:~]# hdparm -t /dev/sda
> >
> > /dev/sda:
> > Timing buffered disk reads: 242 MB in 3.02 seconds = 80.25 MB/sec
>
> That looks normal, my Pro laptop from 6 years ago reaches around 75 MB/s,
> as does my netbook (Atom N450).
Hi, i use Gentoo i686 with KDE that's enough for Samsung N150 with 1 GB
memory. KDE uses 200-250 MB of memory, but firefox take more.
-march=i686 -O2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] cflags for atom
2013-10-21 14:09 [gentoo-user] cflags for atom Silvio Siefke
2013-10-21 14:33 ` thegeezer
2013-10-21 15:15 ` Frank Steinmetzger
@ 2013-10-21 15:20 ` Joseph
2013-10-21 15:40 ` Frank Steinmetzger
2013-10-22 0:31 ` Alecks Gates
3 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Joseph @ 2013-10-21 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
I have four core:
Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU 330 @ 1.60GHz
CFLAGS="-march=core2 -O2 -pipe"
CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}"
MAKEOPTS="-j5"
--
Joseph
On 10/21/13 16:09, Silvio Siefke wrote:
>Hello,
>
>on my netbook Acer Aspire One D255 is running Gentoo amd64 but its so slow.
>I have Samsung NC10 and there is running Gentoo better and that i understand
>not so really.
>
>What Cflags i should use, at moment i use
>
>CFLAGS="-O2 -march=atom -mtune=atom -mssse3 -mfpmath=sse -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe"
>CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}"
>CHOST="x86_64-pc-linux-gnu"
>MAKEOPTS="-j3"
>
>processor : 0
>vendor_id : GenuineIntel
>cpu family : 6
>model : 28
>model name : Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU N550 @ 1.50GHz
>stepping : 10
>microcode : 0x107
>cpu MHz : 1500.000
>cache size : 512 KB
>physical id : 0
>siblings : 4
>core id : 0
>cpu cores : 2
>apicid : 0
>initial apicid : 0
>fpu : yes
>fpu_exception : yes
>cpuid level : 10
>wp : yes
>flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts nopl aperfmperf pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm movbe lahf_lm dtherm
>bogomips : 2992.64
>clflush size : 64
>cache_alignment : 64
>address sizes : 32 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
>power management:
>
>Thats from 0 to 3. It were nice when someone can help.
>
>
>Thank you & Good Day
>Silvio
>
--
Joseph
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-user] cflags for atom
2013-10-21 14:09 [gentoo-user] cflags for atom Silvio Siefke
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2013-10-21 15:20 ` Joseph
@ 2013-10-22 0:31 ` Alecks Gates
2013-10-22 0:45 ` Adam Carter
3 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Alecks Gates @ 2013-10-22 0:31 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Silvio Siefke <siefke_listen@web.de> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> on my netbook Acer Aspire One D255 is running Gentoo amd64 but its so slow.
> I have Samsung NC10 and there is running Gentoo better and that i understand
> not so really.
>
> What Cflags i should use, at moment i use
>
> CFLAGS="-O2 -march=atom -mtune=atom -mssse3 -mfpmath=sse -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe"
> CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}"
> CHOST="x86_64-pc-linux-gnu"
> MAKEOPTS="-j3"
>
> processor : 0
> vendor_id : GenuineIntel
> cpu family : 6
> model : 28
> model name : Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU N550 @ 1.50GHz
> stepping : 10
> microcode : 0x107
> cpu MHz : 1500.000
> cache size : 512 KB
> physical id : 0
> siblings : 4
> core id : 0
> cpu cores : 2
> apicid : 0
> initial apicid : 0
> fpu : yes
> fpu_exception : yes
> cpuid level : 10
> wp : yes
> flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts nopl aperfmperf pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm movbe lahf_lm dtherm
> bogomips : 2992.64
> clflush size : 64
> cache_alignment : 64
> address sizes : 32 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
> power management:
>
> Thats from 0 to 3. It were nice when someone can help.
>
>
> Thank you & Good Day
> Silvio
>
I use -Os on my VIA nanos due to small cache sizes, perhaps that would
help here? I don't own any Atoms to test it with.
--
Alecks Gates
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: [gentoo-user] cflags for atom
2013-10-22 0:31 ` Alecks Gates
@ 2013-10-22 0:45 ` Adam Carter
2013-10-22 2:20 ` Frank Steinmetzger
2013-10-22 12:40 ` [gentoo-user] " James
0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Adam Carter @ 2013-10-22 0:45 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 656 bytes --]
If you havent already, I would first verify that its actually CPU bound,
before changing CFLAGs and recompiling everything. So take a look at top,
vmstat, mpstat etc when you're noticing slowness. If it is truely CPU bound
and you're going to recompile everything, you could consider upgrading to
the ~ version of gcc first, with the assumption that the optimizations
maybe be better. However, my gut feeling is that you wont get much or any
improvement over your current CFLAGs.
The i686 and -Os ideas are interesting. See if you can find any benchmarks.
Also - try diffing the kernel .configs - maybe you missed something
important on the slow system.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 738 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] cflags for atom
2013-10-22 0:45 ` Adam Carter
@ 2013-10-22 2:20 ` Frank Steinmetzger
2013-10-22 12:40 ` [gentoo-user] " James
1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Frank Steinmetzger @ 2013-10-22 2:20 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1542 bytes --]
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:45:35AM +1100, Adam Carter wrote:
> If you havent already, I would first verify that its actually CPU bound,
> before changing CFLAGs and recompiling everything. So take a look at top,
> vmstat, mpstat etc when you're noticing slowness. If it is truely CPU bound
> and you're going to recompile everything, you could consider upgrading to
> the ~ version of gcc first, with the assumption that the optimizations
> maybe be better. However, my gut feeling is that you wont get much or any
> improvement over your current CFLAGs.
>
> The i686 and -Os ideas are interesting. See if you can find any benchmarks.
>
> Also - try diffing the kernel .configs - maybe you missed something
> important on the slow system.
Interestingly, I did carry out tests when I received my netbook in order
to decide between 32 and 64 bit. I did the same tests when I migrated my
big laptop from 32 to 64 bit, but I can't remember the results for the
netbook anymore except for LUKS performance:
the aforementioned hdparm -t on my encrypted /home amounts to 18 MB/s on
32 bit, but reaches almost 30 MB/s with 64 bit. In the end, I went for a
64 bit kernel to increase some computing performance, and 32 bit for all
the rest for memory reasons. The only additional "cost" is that I have
to maintain a 64 bit toolchain via crossdev.
--
Gruß | Greetings | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me with any Facebook service.
Arrogance is the art of being proud of one’s own stupidity.
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-user] Re: cflags for atom
2013-10-22 0:45 ` Adam Carter
2013-10-22 2:20 ` Frank Steinmetzger
@ 2013-10-22 12:40 ` James
1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: James @ 2013-10-22 12:40 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Adam Carter <adamcarter3 <at> gmail.com> writes:
> The i686 and -Os ideas are interesting.
SMALL is better. I've run numerous embedded and minimized gentoo systems
over the years.
Here is the make.conf from a i586:
CHOST="i486-pc-linux-gnu"
CFLAGS="-Os -march=i586 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer"
CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}"
PORTAGE_NICENESS="1"
MAKEOPTS="-j2"
USE="-* -nls mmx hardened ncurses ssl crypt berkdb tcpd pam perl pcre \
python readline zlib bzip2 nptl nptlonly syslog"
MINIMIZE your efforts!
> Also - try diffing the kernel .configs - maybe you missed something
> important on the slow system.
I spent days building several kernels; keep at least 2 so when you minimize
yourself into oblivion, you can recover with the known, working
kernel. Days and Days of minimize-test-reboot (rinse and repeat)
before I got a minimized hardened kernel, that worked well. SMALL is
superior to OPTIMIZED, ihmo.
That said, if you are trying to make it a graphically minimized
portable workstation, experiment with only what you need.
HTOP is the best app to watch along with IOtop, as you use the
system. Published benchmarks will be mostly irrelevant, imho.
Here is a busy, i586
Load average: 0.00 0.00 0.00
mem 9/248 MB
CPU 2.0%
[1] www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/embedded/handbook/
ymmv,
James
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread