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 8E1911381F3 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 00:45:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D600FE0B67; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 00:45:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oa0-f41.google.com (mail-oa0-f41.google.com [209.85.219.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD34CE09E5 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 00:45:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id o9so5944640oag.0 for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:45:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=M0CGTkVcGiPKyEOT+Zklw4ZO0s6t5HT4dKRD7rRt1Rc=; b=ctA+1gRNl2Z1kC3Iz89OfRX4QgcYOOhNyKa1852CLcZqgtDz8KD04fJVcTjmgp/EWs SwglK8Zi4VMbqECBxHpPJ5OnZxacTJopWCWctjjObgJpK9n3s/n/E6eskDlw2qec734R 96wy+sahMJ1cx0kPLoRLI5iN+XUBqeW5h0MiKyfy/3kzRfFXEvjYc9xenc8tW9MlL0gv d7tK30Um33qMHa7YdXmM3RglXGkFUtk3c6/BeUyc/T9VewIYyJAmR+K1q1O4iFnhfJjl NfWvSWbT5+7nM6syUulxEyNGCwZCEpGSYq9SulMjP+tiyjQZ3Ym9f0TvsSNkI4fRIM9v 9Rqw== 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 X-Received: by 10.60.51.99 with SMTP id j3mr96525oeo.49.1382402735969; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:45:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.50.106 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:45:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20131021160911.cc963516c18d659b56252e97@web.de> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:45:35 +1100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] cflags for atom From: Adam Carter To: "gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2ff58039d1204e949b8a9 X-Archives-Salt: 2d4bf076-5ac1-41b3-8410-7e4d354d01ed X-Archives-Hash: 1197c3ae1a862186e230d91fd5ec80d0 --001a11c2ff58039d1204e949b8a9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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. --001a11c2ff58039d1204e949b8a9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If you havent already, I would first verify that its = actually CPU bound, before changing CFLAGs and recompiling everything. So t= ake 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 c= ould 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 .conf= igs - maybe you missed something important on the slow system.
--001a11c2ff58039d1204e949b8a9--