[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091123065201.564d4b16@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:52:01 -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 Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:34:59 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> Mind sending a patch that sets the default to 64 on NUMA too?
>
> P4 based NUMA boxes are ... a bad memory to be forgotten.
this patch adds a regression. Linux defaulted to 64 since.. march or so.
now we go back to the old setting; Nick should fix that. Or at least
extremely document and justify this change....
--
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