From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261592AbVHBQ4S (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2005 12:56:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261659AbVHBQ4S (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2005 12:56:18 -0400 Received: from firewall.kernelslacker.org ([68.162.252.20]:64398 "EHLO nwo.kernelslacker.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261592AbVHBQ4R (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2005 12:56:17 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 12:56:12 -0400 From: Dave Jones To: "Michael D. Setzer II" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: kernel options for cd project with processor family Message-ID: <20050802165612.GB18410@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , "Michael D. Setzer II" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <42EFDC63.31465.58ED66@mikes.kuentos.guam.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42EFDC63.31465.58ED66@mikes.kuentos.guam.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 08:49:39PM +1000, Michael D. Setzer II wrote: > I'm working on the ghost for linux project, which uses various > kernels. The older version 0.14 version had two kernels that support > some configurations. I've added a number of additional builds > adding extra features, but left earlier version in case the later > additions didn't work with hardware. The bzImage6 is the latest and > it works with most hardware, but I found it didn't work on a K6, since > it was build with the Pentium Pro Family. I was able to build one with > the K6 family, and it worked. I had used one of the original kernels > with a K6 before, but this one had a network card that wasn't > supported by it. > > I've built a test set of kernels with the same configuration as the > bzImage6, but changed the Processor family. Below is a list of the > build. I'm interested in which ones would make a difference. I would > think that the 386 version would probable work on all hardware, but > at what cost in performance for creating and restoring the disk > images. G4L uses basically dd, gzip, lzop, bzop, ncftpget, and > ncftpput. With all these images, the g4l iso image is 50MB. Your workload is going to be almost entirely IO bound, with the only CPU intensive parts being 99% in userspace. So any performance gains by tuning the kernel for a specific CPU are likely to be unnoticable. I'd go with a single image supporting the lowest hardware you intend to support. CPU tuned variants of gzip/bzip may be more noticable however. Dave