Re: Please upgrade your machines to sparc64
From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 20:42:31 +0200
> On 06/23/2016 05:06 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> I think what irks people the most about what happened, is that the
>> choosen a path is not the most optimal situation for the target
>> platform.
>
> Why should it be any different for sparc64 than for ppc64el, amd64,
> arm64, mips64el and so on? Is SPARC so extremely inefficient with
> 64-bit pointers? I don't think so.
It makes a significant performance and memory footprint difference.
This is irrefutable.
And all of those binaries you say "don't matter" take up memory,
swap space, etc. And if you add this up for the entire system
it's non-trivial.
Multiply this by some factor N when virtualization is involved.
> I don't think it makes sense to compile things like dateutils with
> 32-bit pointers for performance reasons. Also, I would assume that
> modern compilers are able to optimize the code well enough that the
> difference between 32-bit and 64-bit pointers isn't too big that
> it justifies the effort.
No compiler is going to optimize away the pointers in the data
structures, and thus get all of those cache line and tlb misses back.
I do all of my work with 32-bit gcc binaries, even thought I often am
using tools I've built myself.
It makes a huge difference.
Reply to: