Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 14 Jul 2002 16:49:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 14 Jul 2002 16:49:28 -0400 Received: from coffee.Psychology.McMaster.CA ([130.113.218.59]:41189 "EHLO coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 14 Jul 2002 16:49:23 -0400 Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 16:58:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Hahn X-X-Sender: To: BALBIR SINGH cc: lkml Subject: Re: Pentium IV cache line size In-Reply-To: <009c01c22b10$4934e6b0$290806c0@wipro.com> 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 Content-Length: 1187 Lines: 29 > I think the patch is correct and should be applied. P4 SMP alignment should be 128B, and that seems to be the main use of this constant. I'd *love* to see the spurious "L1" removed - in fact, there's already SMP_CACHE_BYTES, which should be used instead. maybe just CACHE_SHIFT/BYTES, since alignment is used for uni, too. perhaps a janitor/trivial patch for 2.5? > >From Pentium IV, System Programming Guide, Section 9.1, Page 9-2, > Table 9-1. Order # 245472 dueling references! mine are from the p4 and xeon opt guide. page 7-9: Key Practices of Thread Synchronization: ... - Place each synchronization variable alone, separated by 128 byte or in a separate cache line. see also table 1.1. I'm not sure it matters whether you consider lines 128B or 64B; the fact that cacheline reads always happen at 128B is probably the dominant concern. table 1.1 page 7-18 ("placement of shared synchonization variable") repeats this. - 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/