On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 5:58 AM Ben Cotton <bcotton(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:45 PM Solomon Peachy <pizza(a)shaftnet.org> wrote:
> But since anectdote != data, are there any sort of deployment numbers
> out there that show how many Fedora deployments are on AVX-capable
There are no stats available that could be considered defensible. At
best, we could come up with some estimates based on the stats from
other sources that we might assume have a similar profile as Fedora.
I'm not sure if that data exists anywhere, though.
My main personal machine also lacks AVX2-capable hardware, so from a
personal perspective, I'm not super keen on this change. I'm
privileged enough to be able to upgrade my hardware if required, but I
recognize that it's not a reasonable request for others.
> > Fedora will use current CPUs more efficiently, increasing performance
> > and reducing power consumption.
> I think we need to see some actual benchmarks demonstrating this. For
> the core kernel and system libraries rather than microbenchmarks or
> specific applications that already sport AVX codepaths.
I agree. It would be good to see some more specifics about what the
benefit will be. That's the only way we can decide if it's worth the
I think we don't need to bother, there is way too much hardware still
being sold by CPU vendors that don't meet this baseline.
We aren't Apple. If you want to add avx2 optimised binaries to the
system work out how to do that, create fat binary support for Linux,
add a second set of packages for cases that it might matter etc.
Just unilaterally removing a whole chunk of the x86 architecture
support isn't a plan, benchmarks or stats won't help.