On Wed, 2005-12-21 01:22:12 -0800, David S. Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:11:51 +0100 > > > Could some of you post the result of the following command on your machines : VAX KA650 (simulated), 4k pages (hw-size is 512 Bytes, though), L1_CACHE_BYTES=32 # grep "size-" /proc/slabinfo |grep -v DMA|cut -c1-40 size-131072 0 0 131072 size-65536 0 0 65536 size-32768 0 0 32768 size-16384 0 0 16384 size-8192 0 0 8192 size-4096 21 21 4096 size-2048 39 42 2060 size-1024 18 21 1036 size-512 70 70 524 size-256 5 14 268 size-192 722 722 204 size-128 145 168 140 size-96 382 396 108 size-32 1040 1092 44 size-64 338 350 76 MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw [email protected] . +49-172-7608481 _ O _ "Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg _ _ O für einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak! O O O ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- References:
- [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.0.0
- From: Junio C Hamano <[email protected]>
- [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ?
- From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>
- Re: [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ?
- From: "David S. Miller" <[email protected]>
- [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.0.0
- Prev by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/6] RTC subsystem, class
- Next by Date: Re: ordering of suspend/resume for devices. any clues, anyone?
- Previous by thread: Re: [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ?
- Next by thread: Re: [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ?
- Index(es):
 |