Re: bogl: don't know screen type 1
2009/9/11 Kolbjørn Barmen <linux-m68k@kolla.no>:
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009, mike wrote:
>> I tried to boot 2.6.29 or whatever... It was so slow compared to 2.4 i
>> donno what to say, except its crap. Not a surprise if gcc produces
>> crappier and crappier 68k binaries anyway. Why the hell isnt freescale
>> on top of this? Fuck damn they should be on top of this and the 68050/70
>> the natami is trying out, and bloody include talent like Carl S and Dave
>> H that know what the heck the 68k, electronics, and the amiga is
>> about....
>
> For what it's worth - my m68k systems runs current linux kernel, 2.6.30,
> compiled with gcc 4.2.4 just fine, and I have not see any slow-down, apart
> from obvious things in bootup, like initiating udev, creating nodes and
> similar things that have nothing to do with kernel itself. I also make
> sure to compile my kernels with only the modules that makes sense for the
> hardware I run it on.
>
> My systems are one A1200 with Blizzard 1230III (030+882@50MHz) and 32MB
> RAM, one A1200 with Blizzard 1260 (060@50MHz) and 64MB RAM, and one Mac
> Quadra 910 (040@25MHz) with 64MB RAM. Oh and my build box, Aranym with a
> 040@100-180MHz depending on host at bootup, and for the time being, 256MB
> RAM (allthough, it is down ATM, fixing filesystem disaster after I somehow
> managed to launch aranym twice on same disk image :P)
[...]
> So, in the end, I'm not so sure that what you complain about is for real.
2.6.x is noticable slower than 2.4.x, due to increasing RAM requirements.
Probably you don't notice it that much as even your least machine has 32 MiB of
RAM. I do, as my A4000/040 has only 12 MiB of Fast RAM.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Reply to: