[jsun@mvista.com: Re: [RFC] FPU context switch]

[Jun Sun <jsun@mvista.com>]

Meant to send to the list ....

----- Forwarded message from Jun Sun <jsun@mvista.com> -----

X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 2.0
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 16:02:26 -0700
From: Jun Sun <jsun@mvista.com>
To: Greg Lindahl <lindahl@keyresearch.com>
Cc: jsun@mvista.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] FPU context switch
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20020917155854.B1883@wumpus.attbi.com>; from lindahl@keyresearch.com on Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 03:58:54PM -0700

On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 03:58:54PM -0700, Greg Lindahl wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 12:30:23AM +0200, Kevin D. Kissell wrote:
> 
> > I'm extremely skeptical about this "evidence".
> 
> The only good test is Linux with and without lazy saves. Throwing in a
> new OS complicates matters. It sounds like Jun already has working
> code for (1) and (3), so he can do a good test.
>

I actually have 2) and 3).  1) is easy to do, though.  

Anyone can recommand some test programs to try?

A while back, I tried lmbench which is not very telling.
I think the reason is that most of the tests are not using
FPU at all.

However I might try it again anyway.  It might tell the
difference between 1) and 2)&3) easily.

Jun

----- End forwarded message -----