Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Clear Linux Discovers Another AVX2/AVX512 Fix/Optimization To Yield Better Performance

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Clear Linux Discovers Another AVX2/AVX512 Fix/Optimization To Yield Better Performance

    Phoronix: Clear Linux Discovers Another AVX2/AVX512 Fix/Optimization To Yield Better Performance

    For those running a system with AVX-512 support, Clear Linux builds as of this week should be yielding even better performance on top of their existing AVX2 and AVX-512 optimizations...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...bc-AVX2-AVX512

  • speculatrix
    replied
    AsuMagic try Gentoo
    https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/gentoo...ized-software/

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by AsuMagic View Post
    Well, I'm certain some people have been suggesting this already.
    But why don't mainstream distros adopt per CPU versioning for their package managers, so certain packages can get similar improvements like Clear gets, even if that is on some specific packages?
    You wouldn't even have to replace everything. AFAIK, things like the glibc could be compiled with such patches and -march switches and still be ABI compatible.
    Because targeted binaries are a better solution and you'd still need at least two sets of stable repos with -march=icelake-client -mtune=westmere & -march=nzver2 -mtune=bdver2

    Leave a comment:


  • carewolf
    replied
    Originally posted by AsuMagic View Post
    Well, I'm certain some people have been suggesting this already.
    But why don't mainstream distros adopt per CPU versioning for their package managers, so certain packages can get similar improvements like Clear gets, even if that is on some specific packages?
    You wouldn't even have to replace everything. AFAIK, things like the glibc could be compiled with such patches and -march switches and still be ABI compatible.
    Besides glibc is already pretty well optimized for various architectures with runtime switches. It is everything else that is problematic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by AsuMagic View Post
    Well, I'm certain some people have been suggesting this already.
    But why don't mainstream distros adopt per CPU versioning for their package managers, so certain packages can get similar improvements like Clear gets, even if that is on some specific packages?
    You wouldn't even have to replace everything. AFAIK, things like the glibc could be compiled with such patches and -march switches and still be ABI compatible.
    Mostly due to the increased QA/testing/maintenance burden.

    Leave a comment:


  • AsuMagic
    replied
    Well, I'm certain some people have been suggesting this already.
    But why don't mainstream distros adopt per CPU versioning for their package managers, so certain packages can get similar improvements like Clear gets, even if that is on some specific packages?
    You wouldn't even have to replace everything. AFAIK, things like the glibc could be compiled with such patches and -march switches and still be ABI compatible.

    Leave a comment:


  • trubicoid2
    replied
    It is here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Knopornef
    replied
    https://github.com/clearlinux-pkgs/g...be772c10e62b07

    Leave a comment:


  • arokh
    replied
    Is there a git repo of Clear Linux’ glibc somewhere?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X