[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091119075958.2cba15f8@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:59:58 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com,
Ravikiran Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>,
Shai Fultheim <shai@...lemp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: eliminate redundant/contradicting cache line size
config options
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:13:07 +0100
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:
>
> My other point was just this, but I don't care too much. But it is
> worded pretty negatively. The key here is that increasing the value
> too large tends to only cost a very small amount of size (and no
> increase in cacheline foot print, only RAM).
128 has a pretty significant impact on TPC-C benchmarks.....
it was the top issue until mainline fixed it to default to 64
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists