Re: Dropping 686 non-pae kernel

2011-03-18 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Sun, 2011-03-13 at 17:13 +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sun, 2011-03-13 at 09:18 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 03:57:56AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 11:34 +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 11:23 +0100, Bastian Blank

Re: Dropping 686 non-pae kernel

2011-03-13 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Sun, 2011-03-13 at 17:07 +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sun, 2011-03-13 at 17:47 +0100, Cesare Leonardi wrote: > > On 13/03/2011 04:45, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > This really ought to be checked on a Pentium M as well, though. > > > > Ok, my notebook uses a Pentium M 725 (Dothan). > > I thin

Re: Dropping 686 non-pae kernel

2011-03-13 Thread Cesare Leonardi
On 13/03/2011 18:07, Ben Hutchings wrote: Put two sets of benchmark results in two files (one number per line). ministat then calculates statistical measures of each set and a comparison of the two sets. I've run the following in recovery mode (to avoid interference from other programs/daemons

Re: Dropping 686 non-pae kernel

2011-03-13 Thread Cesare Leonardi
On 13/03/2011 18:07, Ben Hutchings wrote: I think that one actually has PAE. /proc/cpuinfo will tell you for sure. Unfortunately not. flags: fpu vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 sep mtrr pge mca cmov clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss tm pbe up bts est tm2 In the past i read that there are diffe

Re: Dropping 686 non-pae kernel

2011-03-13 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Sun, 2011-03-13 at 09:18 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 03:57:56AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 11:34 +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 11:23 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > > [...] > > > > There are several possibilities to do

Re: Dropping 686 non-pae kernel

2011-03-13 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Sun, 2011-03-13 at 17:47 +0100, Cesare Leonardi wrote: > On 13/03/2011 04:45, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > This really ought to be checked on a Pentium M as well, though. > > Ok, my notebook uses a Pentium M 725 (Dothan). I think that one actually has PAE. /proc/cpuinfo will tell you for sure. >

Re: Dropping 686 non-pae kernel

2011-03-13 Thread Cesare Leonardi
On 13/03/2011 04:45, Ben Hutchings wrote: This really ought to be checked on a Pentium M as well, though. Ok, my notebook uses a Pentium M 725 (Dothan). I've run the following script (it should be equivalent to yours) with 2.6.38-rc7 from experimental in recovery mode, both for 486 and 686. A

Re: Dropping 686 non-pae kernel

2011-03-13 Thread Geert Stappers
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 09:18:31AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 03:57:56AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 11:34 +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 11:23 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > > [...] > > > > There are several possibilities

Re: Dropping 686 non-pae kernel

2011-03-13 Thread Bastian Blank
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 03:57:56AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 11:34 +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 11:23 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > [...] > > > There are several possibilities to do this: > > > * Change name of meta-package: > > > - Breaks nothin

Re: Dropping 686 non-pae kernel

2011-03-12 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 11:34 +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 11:23 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: [...] > > There are several possibilities to do this: > > * Change name of meta-package: > > - Breaks nothing > > - Needs manual intervention by anyone using it > > * Don't change t

Re: Dropping 686 non-pae kernel

2011-03-12 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 05:09 +, Ben Hutchings wrote: [...] > For this limited test, the 486 kernel actually seems to be slightly > faster. Note that this was *not* run on an idle system, so other > activity could affect the measurements a little. > > The Pentium M processors are likely to have

Re: Dropping 686 non-pae kernel

2011-02-26 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 11:34 +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 11:23 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > > Hi folks > > > > I'd like to drop the i686 non-pae kernel. Currently we have sometimes > > -686 with PAE; only the normal kernel is without PAE. I'd like to get > > rid of this pro

Re: Dropping 686 non-pae kernel

2011-02-15 Thread Bastian Blank
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:34:51AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > Should we consider also > dropping 486 support and making it a 586 flavour with corresponding > optimisations? I think we need to discuss that with -toolchain and -release. Bastian -

Re: Dropping 686 non-pae kernel

2011-02-14 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 00:14 +0100, Cesare Leonardi wrote: > On 14/02/2011 13:11, Bastian Blank wrote: > >> Are there any changes we could/should make to the 486 flavour that would > >> make it perform better on 686-class processors? Should we consider also > >> dropping 486 support and making it a

Re: Dropping 686 non-pae kernel

2011-02-14 Thread Cesare Leonardi
On 14/02/2011 13:11, Bastian Blank wrote: Are there any changes we could/should make to the 486 flavour that would make it perform better on 686-class processors? Should we consider also dropping 486 support and making it a 586 flavour with corresponding optimisations? The 486 flavour have onl

Re: Dropping 686 non-pae kernel

2011-02-14 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 02:33:38PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 01:05:33PM +, David Goodenough wrote: > > There are also the Vortex86SX based boards which are showing up in a variety > > of little embedded boards. I am not sure these will run with -586 (but I > > may

Re: Dropping 686 non-pae kernel

2011-02-14 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 01:11:02PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:34:51AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: [...] > > Are there any changes we could/should make to the 486 flavour that would > > make it perform better on 686-class processors? Should we consider also > > droppin

Re: Dropping 686 non-pae kernel

2011-02-14 Thread Bastian Blank
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 01:05:33PM +, David Goodenough wrote: > There are also the Vortex86SX based boards which are showing up in a variety > of little embedded boards. I am not sure these will run with -586 (but I may > be wrong). The website does not tell anything about supported instructi

Re: Dropping 686 non-pae kernel

2011-02-14 Thread David Goodenough
On Monday 14 February 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 11:23 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > > Hi folks > > > > I'd like to drop the i686 non-pae kernel. Currently we have sometimes > > -686 with PAE; only the normal kernel is without PAE. I'd like to get > > rid of this problem. A

Re: Dropping 686 non-pae kernel

2011-02-14 Thread Bastian Blank
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:34:51AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 11:23 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > > There are some i686 processors without PAE support. This are some of the > > Pentium M (all of the Banias line and some of the Dothan line) and the > > Via C3 Nehemiah. All o

Re: Dropping 686 non-pae kernel

2011-02-14 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 11:23 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > Hi folks > > I'd like to drop the i686 non-pae kernel. Currently we have sometimes > -686 with PAE; only the normal kernel is without PAE. I'd like to get > rid of this problem. Also this enables the use of the NX bit if supported > by the

Dropping 686 non-pae kernel

2011-02-14 Thread Bastian Blank
Hi folks I'd like to drop the i686 non-pae kernel. Currently we have sometimes -686 with PAE; only the normal kernel is without PAE. I'd like to get rid of this problem. Also this enables the use of the NX bit if supported by the CPU. There are some i686 processors without PAE support. This are s