On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 03:09:02PM +0100, Folkert van Heusden wrote: > > Your results are interesting : size-32 seems to use objects of size 64 ! > > > size-32 1538 2714 64 <<HERE>> > > So I guess that size-32 cache could be avoided at least for EMT (I take you > > run a 64 bits kernel ?) > > I think I do yes: > Linux xxxxx 2.4.21-37.EL #1 SMP Wed Sep 7 13:32:18 EDT 2005 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > It is a redhat 4 x64 system. Looks more like RHEL3 judging from the kernel version. Dave - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ?
- From: Folkert van Heusden <[email protected]>
- Re: [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ?
- 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: Ed Tomlinson <[email protected]>
- Re: [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ?
- From: Folkert van Heusden <[email protected]>
- Re: [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: Folkert van Heusden <[email protected]>
- [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.0.0
- Prev by Date: Re: [patch 1/8] mutex subsystem, XFS namespace collision fixes
- Next by Date: Re: vfat question
- 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):
 |