Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265528AbVBEVxh (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Feb 2005 16:53:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264108AbVBEVxh (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Feb 2005 16:53:37 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:52133 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265747AbVBEVxc (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Feb 2005 16:53:32 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 16:53:30 -0500 From: Dave Jones To: Axel Schmalowsky Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: L1_CACHE Message-ID: <20050205215330.GA26100@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Axel Schmalowsky , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <4204B1D2.9070609@mglug.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4204B1D2.9070609@mglug.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 600 Lines: 17 On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 11:45:22AM +0000, Axel Schmalowsky wrote: > Hey, > > Can anyone tell me if it is destruktive or does it cause lose of > performance if I set up > L1_CACHE_SHIFT_MAX as well as CONFIG_X86_L1_CACHE_SHIFT to the value of 10? This makes no sense. This define is for the cacheline size, not the total size of the cache. Dave - 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/