Re: x86_64 ten times slower than i386

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <linux-kernel@...>
Cc: <mpm@...>
Date: Saturday, November 3, 2007 - 6:38 pm

On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:


Thank you for that advice, the system has 4GB and if I boot with mem=3072M 
it will run as fast as normal while if I don't use the mem option it will 
run 10 times slower, however if I use a figure like mem=3500M the kernel 
will panic, is there any way to determine the highest usable figure 
without try and error?
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
x86_64 ten times slower than i386, Bo Brantén, (Sat Nov 3, 8:31 am)
Re: x86_64 ten times slower than i386, Matt Mackall, (Sat Nov 3, 12:26 pm)
Re: x86_64 ten times slower than i386, Bo Brantén, (Sat Nov 3, 6:38 pm)
Re: x86_64 ten times slower than i386, Bo Brantén, (Mon Nov 5, 6:15 am)
Re: x86_64 ten times slower than i386, H. Peter Anvin, (Mon Nov 5, 1:22 pm)
Re: x86_64 ten times slower than i386, Bo Brantén, (Mon Nov 5, 12:00 pm)
Re: x86_64 ten times slower than i386, Bo Brantén, (Sat Nov 10, 9:41 am)
Re: x86_64 ten times slower than i386, H. Peter Anvin, (Mon Nov 5, 1:23 pm)
Re: x86_64 ten times slower than i386, Bo Brantén, (Mon Nov 5, 2:46 pm)
Re: x86_64 ten times slower than i386, H. Peter Anvin, (Mon Nov 5, 3:11 pm)
Re: x86_64 ten times slower than i386, Joseph Fannin, (Mon Nov 5, 4:06 am)
Re: x86_64 ten times slower than i386, H. Peter Anvin, (Sat Nov 3, 7:30 pm)
Re: x86_64 ten times slower than i386, Matt Mackall, (Sat Nov 3, 6:54 pm)