lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:0.054 / U:0.632 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site