From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 955B31381F3 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 02:20:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C4335E0B67; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 02:20:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A07CEE0B41 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 02:20:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([84.184.180.193]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lt1S6-1VjlKE0pPG-012a5L for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 04:20:16 +0200 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 04:20:12 +0200 From: Frank Steinmetzger To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] cflags for atom Message-ID: <20131022022011.GN2497@nukleus.Speedport_W723_V_Typ_A_1_00_098> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org References: <20131021160911.cc963516c18d659b56252e97@web.de> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="n8884J15jRwcBTvu" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt 1.5.21 (2010-09-15, Gentoo 1.5.21-r12) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:3Ex6t9bEIO+c1u1j5DktSCu7FlR3imCw+pKRbCMgxTKuDaa4n22 YtKjLUNRu1xw4Y+h2lzV1MOGRM1HIUCxtZ04gwwQAqgl23LSGCezL0DOvHGgQ6128qtH4Ed UYE6RMAiQVPPrWqRYLjk5yzn33vkR1FDDXLdKnxMVPMs3b/TZIQbKj+UhiM3VvN1PXwHH36 3QyHdwdEJtYQxnJo555cg== X-Archives-Salt: 40ba6858-ef9b-435c-bcb9-a8161a5190ad X-Archives-Hash: cac45addec70d84ff277b5676855415b --n8884J15jRwcBTvu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 bou= nd > 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. >=20 > The i686 and -Os ideas are interesting. See if you can find any benchmark= s. >=20 > 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. --=20 Gru=C3=9F | Greetings | Qapla=E2=80=99 Please do not share anything from, with or about me with any Facebook servi= ce. Arrogance is the art of being proud of one=E2=80=99s own stupidity. --n8884J15jRwcBTvu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlJl4NoACgkQGafpl66MV0xEnwCgkBq56gEndPsw/9WKaWQm9HJ3 cacAoIRuv4R8my2aWRuGsL4CULUja7j2 =dl3/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --n8884J15jRwcBTvu--