Re: [PATCH 4/5] tune-atom.inc: include tune-bonnell.inc instead of tune-core2.inc

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 11:59 -0700, Andre McCurdy wrote:
> Use 'atom' as an alias for the first generation Intel Atom CPUs.
> ---
>  meta/conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/meta/conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc b/meta/conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
> index 5e1bb74..24cd676 100644
> --- a/meta/conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
> +++ b/meta/conf/machine/include/tune-atom.inc
> @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
> -# Atom tunings are the same as core2 for now...
> -require conf/machine/include/tune-core2.inc
> +# Alias for the first generation of Intel Atom CPUs.
> +require conf/machine/include/tune-bonnell.inc

This is actually pretty nasty to anyone who uses package feeds or
packages since all of a sudden, the system rebuilds with a completely
different package architecture. Not sure we can take this change for
that reason.

I'd also like to understand how much of a difference these specific
tunes actually give. I know the Intel people have been trying to focus
on a smaller number of tunes that work well on the majority of platforms
rather than micro optimising the tunes.

Are there some benchmark numbers or other analysis which shows these
tunes as being more effective?

Cheers,

Richard