Re: Linux-5.2.8 configuration: Intel Atom x5-Z8330 and CONFIG_MATOM

On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 01:09:17PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>    From: Hans Malissa
>    Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2020 12:34
>    To: [email protected]
>    Subject: [lfs-chat] Linux-5.2.8 configuration: Intel Atom x5-Z8330 and
>    CONFIG_MATOM
> 
>     
> 
>    This is not a support request; I'm mainly asking out of curiosity (that's
>    why I'm posting this in lfs-chat).
> 
>    My CPU is an Intel Atom x5-Z8330 (06-4c-04)
>    (https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/boards-kits/compute-stick/stk1a32sc.html),
>    and during the configuration of Linux-5.2.8 there is an item in 'Processor
>    type and features' under 'Processor family' that says 'Intel Atom'
>    (CONFIG_MATOM). The description says: 'Select this for the Intel Atom
>    platform. Intel Atom CPUs have an in-order pipelining architecture and
>    thus can benefit from accordingly optimized code. Use a recent GCC with
>    specific Atom support in order to fully benefit from selecting this
>    option.'. I'm not sure what that means. Does the GCC that's built during
>    LFS/BLFS have such a 'specific Atom support' or what would it take to get
>    that? LFS runs fine with the 'Generic-x86-64' option; I'm just wondering
>    if I can get more out of this CPU.
> 
>    Thanks a lot!
> 
>     
> 
>    For GCC you have to set “march” and/or related settings under
>    CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS as you compile to get the runtime support. It mostly means
>    the processor will be used more efficiently if you use the specific code
>    instead of the generic code. If you want to build a new LFS with CFLAGS
>    set to enable Atom support, have fun!
> 
>     
> 
>    Flareon Zulu

With respect, since your reply came in while I was posting - the
question is only about the kernel.  A kernel adapted for an Atom
should in theory run faster on that machine, but it might not run,
or else run slowly, on more mainstream CPUs.

For a full LFS adapted to the machine your reply is, of course,
correct.  whether that is worth doing on a machine which only
supports 2 GB of memory and has a maximum frequency of 500 MHz (I
looked at wikipedia!) is a different question.

Personally, I find 8GB of RAM is a bit tight ;-)  Fortunately, we
all have different interests and usages.

ĸen
-- 
We had folksingers in the lower bar for six months back home where
I worked.  In the end we had to get a man in with a ferret.
                   -- Polly, in "Interesting Times"
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-chat
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page