On 05/17/2012 06:19 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:28:29AM +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
x32 makes intel be faster Atom Z2460 [1]
I can't find any x86_64/ia32/x32 benchmarks in that article? Regardless,
I'd agree that x32 is potentially useful on heavily
On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 02:28 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
So that make me wonder if we really need to built the whole collection
as x32 ? Or if we only wants a selection of components to be optimized
by x32. For example does it matter to move the whole Xorg server
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 09:53:12AM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
I don't think this is always the case. Obviously if you run a lot of
both kinds of apps it matters, but if there are a few, small x86-64
processes (say e.g. the xserver, or a database instance) the doubled mem
use from some
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:28:29AM +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
[...]
So, overall, x32 is only really beneficial for embedded platforms rather
than general purpose ones. As Josh says, if
Tomasz Torcz to...@pipebreaker.pl writes:
[...] Can we get some definite numbers?
Yeah, not enough of those going around. A quick test with systemtap,
a typical pointer/datastructure-heavy program, on same x86-64 machine,
compiled with -m64 and -m32, same workload. It parses
On 05/17/2012 04:37 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Tomasz Torcz to...@pipebreaker.pl writes:
[...] Can we get some definite numbers?
Yeah, not enough of those going around. A quick test with systemtap,
a typical pointer/datastructure-heavy program, on same x86-64 machine,
compiled with
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 03:30:23PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:28:31PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Mhmm, so I was under the impression that x32 was mostly about increasing
the scalability of virtualized systems. i.e. run a higher number of
x32
Hi.
On Thu, 17 May 2012 19:28:04 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote
I was under the impression that it was to make Android work better
on Intel. Scalable VMs are an interesting idea, but for a typical
session how much RAM are we talking about?
... and also how does it compare to other
I noticed this article:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTEwMTk
Has this been discussed on fedora?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com wrote:
I noticed this article:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTEwMTk
Has this been discussed on fedora?
Not that I've seen. Also, the article is either incomplete or
incorrect, as full x32 support for glibc
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 09:18:32AM -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
I noticed this article:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTEwMTk
Has this been discussed on fedora?
x32 is mostly beneficial in that it reduces pointer size and so memory
consumption, with the side benefit that
On Wed, 16.05.12 14:31, Matthew Garrett (mj...@srcf.ucam.org) wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 09:18:32AM -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
I noticed this article:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTEwMTk
Has this been discussed on fedora?
x32 is mostly beneficial in that
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:28:31PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Mhmm, so I was under the impression that x32 was mostly about increasing
the scalability of virtualized systems. i.e. run a higher number of
x32 containers/VM on an x86_64 host. Most server software that is run in
mjg59 wrote:
[...] If you have any applications that need to be 64-bit (ie,
anything that is going to need more than 4GB of address space, which
is very different from needing more than 4GB of RAM) then you need
to have two copies of your libraries and suddenly your memory
benefits have
On Wed, 16.05.12 15:30, Matthew Garrett (mj...@srcf.ucam.org) wrote:
Heya,
(added hpa to CC, who appears to be behind x32 upstream)
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:28:31PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Mhmm, so I was under the impression that x32 was mostly about increasing
the scalability
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:28:31PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Mhmm, so I was under the impression that x32 was mostly about increasing
the scalability of virtualized systems. i.e. run a higher number of
x32 containers/VM on an x86_64 host. Most server software that is run in
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
And, for various programs you usually don't need 64-bit address space,
but in the case where you have say bigger input you are simply out of luck
if you are limited to 32-bit address space. Say with compilers/linkers,
you
Gregory Maxwell (gmaxw...@gmail.com) said:
It's for this reason (and the multilib memory bloat) that I was really
disappointed to see x32 created.
32bit of an addressable space is a real limitation on modern machines—
and completely reasonable software which is linear in input size is
Neal Becker wrote:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTEwMTk
Has this been discussed on fedora?
Yes:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-January/148092.html
The answer was no.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 15:30 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:28:31PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Mhmm, so I was under the impression that x32 was mostly about increasing
the scalability of virtualized systems. i.e. run a higher number of
x32 containers/VM on
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Alexander Larsson al...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 15:30 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:28:31PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Mhmm, so I was under the impression that x32 was mostly about increasing
the scalability
On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 21:37 +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Alexander Larsson al...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 15:30 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:28:31PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Mhmm, so I was under the impression
2012/5/16 Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com wrote:
I noticed this article:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTEwMTk
Has this been discussed on fedora?
Not that I've seen. Also, the article is either incomplete
drago01 drag...@gmail.com writes:
[...] Can x32 run i686 software (multilib) ? Because not being
able to run existing software might be a reason for many to want
such a host.
x32 is not a different cpu architecture. It's a software ABI to run
on x86-64, especially suited for smaller-memory
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/5/16 Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com wrote:
I noticed this article:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTEwMTk
Has this been discussed
Matthew Garrett wrote:
[...]
So, overall, x32 is only really beneficial for embedded platforms rather
than general purpose ones. As Josh says, if there's sufficient interest
then it could potentially be implemented as a separate architecture and
spend some time in secondary, but I don't know
Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
So that make me wonder if we really need to built the whole collection
as x32 ? Or if we only wants a selection of components to be optimized
by x32. For example does it matter to move the whole Xorg server
infrastructure as x32 or is it possible to leave it as x86_64 ?
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:28:29AM +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
[...]
So, overall, x32 is only really beneficial for embedded platforms rather
than general purpose ones. As Josh says, if there's sufficient interest
then it could potentially be implemented as a
28 matches
Mail list logo
