Re: Appropriate liburcu cache line size for Power

[Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>]

Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> writes:
> Hi,

Hi Mathieu,

> In the powerpc architecture support within the liburcu project [1]
> we have a cache line size defined as 256 bytes with the following
> comment:
>
> /* Include size of POWER5+ L3 cache lines: 256 bytes */
> #define CAA_CACHE_LINE_SIZE     256
>
> I recently received a pull request on github [2] asking to
> change this to 128 bytes. All the material provided supports
> that the cache line sizes on powerpc are 128 bytes or less (even
> L3 on POWER7, POWER8, and POWER9) [3].
>
> I wonder where the 256 bytes L3 cache line size for POWER5+
> we have in liburcu comes from, and I wonder if it's the right choice
> for a cache line size on all powerpc, considering that the Linux
> kernel cache line size appear to use 128 bytes on recent Power
> architectures. I recall some benchmark experiments Paul and I did
> on a 64-core 1.9GHz POWER5+ machine that benefited from a 256 bytes
> cache line size, and I suppose this is why we came up with this
> value, but I don't have the detailed specs of that machine.
>
> Any feedback on this matter would be appreciated.

The ISA doesn't specify the cache line size, other than it is smaller
than a page.

In practice all the 64-bit IBM server CPUs I'm aware of have used 128
bytes. There are some 64-bit CPUs that use 64 bytes, eg. pasemi PA6T and
Freescale e6500.

It is possible to discover at runtime via AUXV headers. But that's no
use if you want a compile-time constant.

I'm happy to run some benchmarks if you can point me at what to run. I
had a poke around the repository and found short_bench, but it seemed to
run for a very long time.

cheers