Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] better i386 CPU selection

[Mikael Pettersson]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 00:51:39 +0200, Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > - Which CPUs exactly need X86_ALIGNMENT_16?
>> >
>> >Unsure. This could use testing on a few systems.
>> 
>> K7s and P5s (and 486s too if I remember correctly) strongly prefer
>> code entry points and loop labels to be 16-byte aligned. This is
>> due to the way code is fetched from L1.
>>...
>
>Hm, that's pretty different from the definition in -test5:
>
>config X86_ALIGNMENT_16
>        bool
>        depends on MWINCHIP3D || MWINCHIP2 || MWINCHIPC6 || MCYRIXIII || 
>          MELAN || MK6 || M586MMX || M586TSC || M586 || M486 || MVIAC3_2
>        default y

My comment referred to data from Intel and AMD code optimisation
guides.

The kernel only uses X86_ALIGNMENT_16 to derive two __ALIGN macros
for assembly code, but it doesn't use them except in one place in
the pnpbios code.

gcc -march=<cpu type> should generate appropriate alignment for
function entries and loop labels.

I suspect X86_ALIGNMENT_16 is a left-over from old code.
Perhaps its time to retire it.

/Mikael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/