[Top] [All Lists]

[ Re: [RFC] FPU context switch]

Subject: [ Re: [RFC] FPU context switch]
From: Jun Sun <>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 16:04:25 -0700
Original-recipient: rfc822;
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
Meant to send to the list ....

----- Forwarded message from Jun Sun <> -----

X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 2.0
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 16:02:26 -0700
From: Jun Sun <>
To: Greg Lindahl <>
Subject: Re: [RFC] FPU context switch
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <>; from on Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 03:58:54PM -0700

On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 03:58:54PM -0700, Greg Lindahl wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 12:30:23AM +0200, Kevin D. Kissell wrote:
> > I'm extremely skeptical about this "evidence".
> The only good test is Linux with and without lazy saves. Throwing in a
> new OS complicates matters. It sounds like Jun already has working
> code for (1) and (3), so he can do a good test.

I actually have 2) and 3).  1) is easy to do, though.  

Anyone can recommand some test programs to try?

A while back, I tried lmbench which is not very telling.
I think the reason is that most of the tests are not using
FPU at all.

However I might try it again anyway.  It might tell the
difference between 1) and 2)&3) easily.


----- End forwarded message -----

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>