From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: Timeline of IPoIB performance Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 02:51:22 +0200 Message-ID: <200510110251.22442.ak@suse.de> References: <1128672413.13948.326.camel@localhost> <20051010212652.GG9613@esmail.cup.hp.com> <20051010233054.GA11213@esmail.cup.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, openib-general@openib.org Return-path: To: Grant Grundler In-Reply-To: <20051010233054.GA11213@esmail.cup.hp.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: openib-general-bounces@openib.org Errors-To: openib-general-bounces@openib.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 11 October 2005 01:30, Grant Grundler wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 02:26:52PM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote: > ... > > > If it's interleaving, every other cacheline will be "local". > > ISTR AMD64 was page-interleaved but then got confused by documents > describing "128-bit" 2-way interleave. I now realize the 128bit > is refering to interleave between two "banks" of memory behind > each memory controller. ie 2 * 128-bit provides in the 32-byte > cacheline size that most x86 programs expect. The cache line size on K7 and K8 is 64 bytes. > Anyway, I'm hoping that we'll see a consistent result if node interleave > is turned off. Yes usually a good idea. -Andi