Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 18:35:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 18:35:03 -0500 Received: from rakis.net ([207.8.143.12]:62628 "EHLO egg.rakis.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 18:34:47 -0500 Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 18:34:47 -0500 (EST) From: Greg Boyce X-X-Sender: gboyce@egg To: Alan Cox Cc: gmack@innerfire.net, Horst von Brand , Subject: Re: Machines misreporting Bogomips In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > > The machine is reporting that the cache is enabled. Even if this was > > true, I have trouble believing that turning on the cache would result in a > > 50,000% increase in speed (4 bogomips compared to 500). > > L1 and L2 cache both disabled comes up as about 2.5 bogomips typically on > a Pentium II/III. > Ahh. I was working with someone else trying to figure out if the cache would affect the calculated bogomips. Looks like it would. The machine I'm reporting shows 512K of cache though. I included a second machine as a comparison, and apparently choose poorly. That was the machine reporting no cache. Would a machine with L1 cache disabled, but with 512K of L2 cache report around 4 Bogomips, or would the performance hit not be that strong? - 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/