[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160708180746.GB4429@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 20:07:46 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Anvin, H Peter" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] Documentation, ABI: Add a document entry for
cache id
* Luck, Tony <tony.luck@...el.com> wrote:
> > It means one cache's id is unique in all caches with same cache index number.
> > For example, in all caches with index3 (i.e. level3), cache id 0 is unique to identify
> > a L3 cache. But in caches with index 0 (i.e. Level0), there is also a cache id 0.
> > So cache id is unique in one index. But not unique in two different index.
>
> > Does that make sense? I hope I express that correctly.
>
> We use "index" rather than "level" because that is the terminology used
> in /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cache/index*
Who can we ... thank for that nonsensical naming? :-/
> E.g. on most Intel cpus you'll typically find "index0" is the L1-data cache,
> "index1" is the L1-instruction cache, "index3" is the L2-unified cache and
> "index4" is the L3-unified cache.
Crazy. What was wrong with using 'level' or 'depth'?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists