64-bit vs 32-bit userspace/kernel benchmark? Was: Athlon 64 X2 cpuinfo oddities

[Jeffrey Hundstad <jeffrey.hundstad@mnsu.edu>]

Jesper Juhl wrote:

> On 1/10/06, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:
>  
>
> > On Tuesday 10 January 2006 03:12, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> >    
...

> > Ah - how legacy.
> >
> >    
> Yeah, but since my distro of choice is 32bit only and I don't much
> feel like porting it myself or using an unofficial port (slamd64) I'm
> sticking with a 32bit userspace. And as long as userspace is pure
> 32bit there doesn't seem to be much point in building a 64bit kernel.
> And I only have 2GB of RAM, so I don't have a use for the larger 64bit
> address space.
> I also don't run any apps that do a lot of math on >32bit numbers, so
> there's not much gain there either.
> I guess I would bennefit from the extra GPR's, but then I would at the
> same time loose a bit by all pointers being 64bit - both lose some
> disk space due to larger binaries and I'd have increased memory use
> and less efficient L1/L2 cache use.
>
> I don't think there would actually be much gain for me in switching to
> a 64bit kernel with a 64bit userspace atm.
> But if I'm wrong I'd of course love to hear about it :)
>
>  

Has anyone done any actual benchmark tests that show 64-bit vs 32-bit 
environments/distributions with Athlon64 processors.  If so, I love to 
see the results.  I too elected to stick with 32-bit, using the same 
reasoning/guessing above.

--
Jeffrey Hundstad

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