Re: [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ?

Folkert van Heusden
2005-12-21T14:09:05Z

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> >size-131072 0 0 131072
> >size-65536 0 0 65536
> >size-32768 20 20 32768
> >size-16384 8 9 16384
> >size-8192 37 38 8192
> >size-4096 269 269 4096
> >size-2048 793 910 2048
> >size-1024 564 608 1024
> >size-512 702 856 512
> >size-256 1485 4005 256
> >size-128 1209 1350 128
> >size-64 2858 3363 64
> >size-32 1538 2714 64
> >Intel(R) Xeon(TM) MP CPU 3.00GHz
> >address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
>
> Your results are interesting : size-32 seems to use objects of size 64 !
> > size-32 1538 2714 64 <<HERE>>
> So I guess that size-32 cache could be avoided at least for EMT (I take you
> run a 64 bits kernel ?)

I think I do yes:
Linux xxxxx 2.4.21-37.EL #1 SMP Wed Sep 7 13:32:18 EDT 2005 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
It is a redhat 4 x64 system.
Also from /proc/cpuinfo:
address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual

Folkert van Heusden

- --
Try MultiTail! Multiple windows with logfiles, filtered with regular
expressions, colored output, etc. etc. www.vanheusden.com/multitail/
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your PGP/GPG key signed at www.biglumber.com!
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: +31-6-41278122, PGP-key: 1F28D8AE, www.vanheusden.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iIMEARECAEMFAkOpYf08Gmh0dHA6Ly93d3cudmFuaGV1c2Rlbi5jb20vZGF0YS1z
aWduaW5nLXdpdGgtcGdwLXBvbGljeS5odG1sAAoJEDAZDowfKNiugqYAoJWSoI9M
O1sYrhWfFCoyTWweGN29AKCfPy46A1XHYC598IN4TXRSV2u6QA==
=xMjS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----