From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:23:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:23:49 -0400 Received: from mail.internet-factory.de ([195.122.142.5]:43985 "EHLO mail.internet-factory.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:23:35 -0400 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Path: not-for-mail From: Holger Lubitz Newsgroups: lists.linux.kernel Subject: Re: [FAQ?] More ram=less performance (maximum cacheable RAM) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 16:23:52 +0200 Organization: Internet Factory AG Message-ID: <3B8BA978.47EF9D77@internet-factory.de> In-Reply-To: <3B82B988.50DE308A@iname.com> <200108211957.f7LJvEt20846@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: bastille.internet-factory.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: darkstar.internet-factory.de 999008632 28875 195.122.142.158 (28 Aug 2001 14:23:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@internet-factory.de NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Aug 2001 14:23:52 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.8-ac12 i686) X-Accept-Language: en Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Richard Gooch proclaimed: > Er, are you sure about this? The problem isn't the size of your cache, > it's the size of your TAG RAM. That's a different beast. Cachable memory area is a function of cache size, tag size and cache mode (wb or wt - first needs dirty tag, second doesn't). With VIA MVP3 boards for example, cachable memory depends on the size of the cache. Which is why most of the boards with this chipset had 1 MB level 2 cache (enough for 128 mb with writeback or 256 mb with writethrough), some even had 2 MB (for twice that). Holger