![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Davide Libenzi <dlibenzi@maticad.it> said: > On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, Horst von Brand wrote: > > In case your application switches rapidly, it is thrashing the cache, which > > is crucial for performance with current CPUs. You simply don't want to do > > that, ever. You get best performance by _never_ switching unless forced to > > do so, but that isn't realistic. > If You switch fast You have more cache reloads of probably less cache lines ( > or pages ). Yep. You don't even get to build up your working set that way. Just cache misses, no real work done. > Since a task that run a short time has a lower probability to "touch" RAM > locations. It also hasn't got time enough to use the RAM locations it got into cache for more than a few times. This obviously depends on the exact behaviour of processes and cache use. -- Horst von Brand vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl Casilla 9G, Viña del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:56 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||