Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932328AbVLUJWM (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:22:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932329AbVLUJWM (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:22:12 -0500 Received: from dsl027-180-168.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.27.180.168]:58536 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932328AbVLUJWL (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:22:11 -0500 Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 01:22:12 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <20051221.012212.65592069.davem@davemloft.net> To: dada1@cosmosbay.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ak@suse.de Subject: Re: [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ? From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <43A91C57.20102@cosmosbay.com> References: <7vbqzadgmt.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <43A91C57.20102@cosmosbay.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 4.2.53 on Emacs 21.4 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1023 Lines: 26 From: Eric Dumazet Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:11:51 +0100 > Could some of you post the result of the following command on your machines : sparc64, PAGE_SIZE=8192, L1_CACHE_BYTES=32 size-131072 0 0 131072 size-65536 13 13 65536 size-32768 2 2 32768 size-16384 2 2 16384 size-8192 67 67 8192 size-4096 75 76 4096 size-2048 303 308 2048 size-1024 176 176 1024 size-512 251 255 512 size-256 217 217 256 size-192 1230 1230 192 size-128 106 122 128 size-96 1098 1134 96 size-64 29387 30226 64 - 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/