Re: [PATCH] x86: eliminate redundant/contradicting cache line sizeconfig options

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:34:59 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> * Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:13:07 +0100
> > Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> 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.

this patch adds a regression. Linux defaulted to 64 since.. march or so.

now we go back to the old setting; Nick should fix that. Or at least
extremely document and justify this change....



-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/