From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] cell: prevent alignment interrupt on local store From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Olaf Hering In-Reply-To: <20070412042337.GA21832@aepfle.de> References: <20070410111508.GA2969@localhost.localdomain> <1176240168.8061.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070411025605.GB2197@localhost.localdomain> <1176262253.8061.60.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070412042337.GA21832@aepfle.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:26:06 +1000 Message-Id: <1176355566.8061.121.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Akinobu Mita , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras , cbe-oss-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 06:23 +0200, Olaf Hering wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > This isn't just a kernel issue either; the same holds > > for all of userspace. It seems to me the only way to > > get good performance on both Cell and all other platforms > > is to have a separate binary distribution for Cell. > > How much will this impact performance on a 970, 74xx or POWER6 if > everything gets compiled with '--mcpu=$cell', compared to what is used > today? One gets at least altivec that way. Gets altivec and stops working on POWER5 ? no deal :-) Ben.