Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:08:51 +0200 | From | "Ihar 'Philips' Filipau" <> | Subject | Re: cache limit |
| |
Mike Fedyk wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 12:15:46PM +0200, Ihar 'Philips' Filipau wrote: >> If I have 1GB of memory and my applications for use only 16MB - it >>doesn't mean I want to fill 1GB-16MB with garbage like file my momy had >>viewed two weeks ago. >> >> That's it: OS should scale for *application* *needs*. >> >> Can you compare in your mind overhead of managing 1GB of cache with >>managing e.g. 16MB of cache? >> > > Ok, let's benchmark it. > > Yes, I can see the logic in your argument, but at this point, numbers are > needed to see if or how much of a win this might be.
[ I beleive you can see those thread about O_STREAMING patch. Not-caching was giving 10%-15% peformance boost for gcc on kernel compiles. Isn't that overhead? ]
I will try to produce some benchmarktings tomorrow with different 'mem=%dMB'. I'm afraid to confirm that it will make difference. But in advance: mantainance of page tables for 1GB and for 128MB of RAM are going to make a difference.
- 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/
| |