[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091118205240.11d3d660@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:52:40 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, 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 04:56:40 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:
>
> > The only other use for L1 cache size macro is to pack objects to
> > cachelines better (so they always use the fewest number of lines).
> > But this case is more rare nowadays people don't really count
> > cachelines anymore, but I think even then it makes sense for it to
> > be the largest line size in the system because we don't know how
> > big L1s are, and if you want opimal L1 packing, you likely also
> > want optimal Ln packing.
>
> We could do that - but then this default of X86_INTERNODE_CACHE_SHIFT:
>
> + default "7" if NUMA
>
> will bite us and turns the 64 bytes L1_CACHE_BYTES into an effective
> 128 bytes value.
>
> So ... are you arguing for an increase of the default x86 linesize to
> 128 bytes?
128 is basically always wrong.
(unless you have a P4... but for default really we should not care
about those anymore)
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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