On Tuesday, May 01, 2012 6:46:04 pm Erik Cederstrand wrote:
> Den 01/05/2012 kl. 15.55 skrev Gary Palmer:
> >
> > If you want a high-level view of what goes on run
> >
> > ldd `which ls`
> >
> > check that it has libraries to load and doesn't say "not a dynamic ELF
> > executable", and then run:
as part of my netmap investigations, i was looking at how
expensive are memory copies, and here are a couple of findings
(first one is obvious, the second one less so)
1. especially on 64bit machines, always use multiple of at
least 8 bytes (possibly even larger units). The bcopy code
in amd
Luigi Rizzo ha scritto:
For small blocks and multiples of 32-64 bytes, i noticed that
the following is a lot faster (breaking even at about 1 KBytes)
static inline void
fast_bcopy(void *_src, void *_dst, int l)
{
uint64_t *src = _src;
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> 2. apparently, bcopy is not the fastest way to copy memory.
http://now.cs.berkeley.edu/Td/bcopy.html
Best Regards.
Steven.
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To un
On a 10.0 Current system, cvsupped today, ksh93 fails to build. As best
I can determine, the failure is due to a problem of conflicting
includes.
In file included from
/home/ports/usr/ports/shells/ksh93/work/arch/freebsd.amd64/include/ast/ast_wchar.h:113,
from
/home/ports/usr/p
It's highly chipset and processor dependent what works best. Intel now
has non-temporal loads and stores which work much better in some cases
but provide little benefit in others.
-Kip
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Steven Atreju wrote:
> Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>> 2. apparently, bcopy is not the f
Hi,
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Steven Atreju wrote:
> Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>> 2. apparently, bcopy is not the fastest way to copy memory.
>
> http://now.cs.berkeley.edu/Td/bcopy.html
>
"Pentium 166, Triton Chipset, EDO memory"... ahem.
- Arnaud
> Best Regards.
>
> Steven.
>
Can't say that I wouldn't look forward to this, but it sounds a little off:
http://www.trollaxor.com/2012/05/freebsd-x-berkeley-unix-apple-quality.html
What do others think?
--Vance
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 12:31:12AM -0400, Vance Siemens wrote:
> Can't say that I wouldn't look forward to this, but it sounds a little off:
>
> http://www.trollaxor.com/2012/05/freebsd-x-berkeley-unix-apple-quality.html
>
> What do others think?
Please leave trollaxor on Kuro5hin or slashdot wh
On 05/03/12 06:31, Vance Siemens wrote:
> Can't say that I wouldn't look forward to this, but it sounds a little off:
>
> http://www.trollaxor.com/2012/05/freebsd-x-berkeley-unix-apple-quality.html
>
> What do others think?
>
> --Vance
OMG!
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 06:52:21PM -0400, Derek Tattersall wrote:
> On a 10.0 Current system, cvsupped today, ksh93 fails to build. As best
> I can determine, the failure is due to a problem of conflicting
> includes.
>
> In file included from
> /home/ports/usr/ports/shells/ksh93/work/arch/fre
11 matches
Mail list logo
