Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755614AbZKWIfS (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:35:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752884AbZKWIfR (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:35:17 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:42676 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752548AbZKWIfQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:35:16 -0500 Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:34:59 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Nick Piggin , Jan Beulich , tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, Ravikiran Thirumalai , Shai Fultheim Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: eliminate redundant/contradicting cache line size config options Message-ID: <20091123083459.GB11443@elte.hu> References: <4AFD5710020000780001F8F0@vpn.id2.novell.com> <20091116041407.GB5818@wotan.suse.de> <4B011677020000780001FD9D@vpn.id2.novell.com> <20091116105657.GE5818@wotan.suse.de> <20091119035640.GA18236@elte.hu> <20091118205240.11d3d660@infradead.org> <20091119081307.GA20534@wotan.suse.de> <20091119075958.2cba15f8@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091119075958.2cba15f8@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 897 Lines: 24 * Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:13:07 +0100 > Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > My other point was just this, but I don't care too much. But it is > > worded pretty negatively. The key here is that increasing the value > > too large tends to only cost a very small amount of size (and no > > increase in cacheline foot print, only RAM). > > 128 has a pretty significant impact on TPC-C benchmarks..... > it was the top issue until mainline fixed it to default to 64 Mind sending a patch that sets the default to 64 on NUMA too? P4 based NUMA boxes are ... a bad memory to be forgotten. Ingo -- 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/