From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11F95679F7 for ; Sat, 13 May 2006 00:02:13 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: 2.6 vs 2.4 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Srinivas Murthy In-Reply-To: <1147442231.9412.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <7cb1293c0605112351y658460a0x8b793ea12004dbfc@mail.gmail.com> <1147442231.9412.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 00:02:02 +1000 Message-Id: <1147442522.9412.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 23:57 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 23:51 -0700, Srinivas Murthy wrote: > > Hi, > > Wolfgang Denk has a good listing of issues to consider betn linux 2.4 > > vs 2.6 for ppc82xx based platforms > > (http://www.denx.de/wiki/Know/Linux24vs26). > > > > Would this recommendation still hold? > > > > Are there any patches, developments in this area? > > The main open question is: is somebody still maintaining the 8xx kernel > port ? Oh , and to give a better reply after reading that web page... I'd say there might be a reason why 2.6 is slower (or appears slower) than 2.4 on some of those embedded platforms. It's definitely faster in a number of areas on 6xx and other desktop CPUs. A lot of embedded folks will then bitch and complain about the slowdown on their 8xx processor, but very few of them if not none popped up actually identifying the actual issues and coming up with solution for them during the 2.6 dev. cycle. Ben.