On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 21:41:04 +0000
Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 09:03:57PM +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 12:08:34 +0000
> > Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:54:52PM +0100, Ricardo Galli wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's very cosmetic but very annoying for P3 > 1GHz, where Linux <= 2.4.20-preX
> > > > only reports 32 KB of cache and it also seems to ignore the "cachesize"
> > > > parameter. Perhaps it really uses 256KB, but not sure.
> > >
> > > There was a bug related to that parameter, I'm sure if the fix
> > > went into the same patch, or a separate one. I'll check later.
> >
> > Sorry for this possibly dumb comment/question:
> > my Tualatins have 512KB cache on die. Are we all sure that it's used?
> > /proc says indeed 32KB on 2.4.20-rc2
>
> Odd. If you can send me the output of dmesg, /proc/cpuinfo
> and x86info -a, I'll take a look.
> (You can find x86info at
> http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/x86info/x86info-1.11.tar.gz)
Hi Dave,
I just tested your descriptors.diff, and here are the results:
(make dep clean bzImage modules modules_install, all same tree of course)
2.4.20-rc2:
real 5m27.670s user 5m6.450s sys 0m18.710s
real 5m27.590s user 5m6.760s sys 0m18.660s
real 5m27.953s user 5m6.900s sys 0m18.310s
2.4.20-rc2 with descriptors.diff:
real 5m29.005s user 5m8.540s sys 0m18.610s
real 5m27.752s user 5m8.760s sys 0m17.870s
real 5m29.021s user 5m8.210s sys 0m18.540s
Doesn't really look more than cosmetic, does it?
/proc output is correct with your diff.
Regards,
Stephan
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 23 2002 - 22:00:34 EST