Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:56:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:56:07 -0500 Received: from noodles.codemonkey.org.uk ([213.152.47.19]:40584 "EHLO noodles.internal") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:56:06 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:01:12 +0000 From: Dave Jones To: Steffen Persvold Cc: Dave Jones , Margit Schubert-While , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4.20-rc2 strange L1 cache values Message-ID: <20021120190112.GC10698@suse.de> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Steffen Persvold , Margit Schubert-While , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20021120181359.GA10698@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 896 Lines: 25 On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 07:48:27PM +0100, Steffen Persvold wrote: > > > <6>CPU: L1 I cache: 0K, L1 D cache: 8K > Yep that works (I have two Xeon boxes with the same issue) : > But why does this P4 Trace cache report as L1 I cache on 2.4.18 ? Look again above, and you'll see .18 said it had 0K L1 (which is correct, L1 != Trace cache). > Does this have any implications on the 2.4.18 performance (or the > 2.4.20-rc2 performance without the descriptors.diff) ? The SMP weighting should be done with L2 cache size, which was correct on .18 too, so it should be ok. Dave -- | Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk | SuSE Labs - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/