[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: x86: 4kstacks default
On Sun, 20 April 2008 20:19:30 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> >>> When dealing in those dimensions, savings of 100k are substantial. In
> >>> some causes they may be the difference between 16MiB or 32MiB, which
> >>> translates to manufacturing costs. In others it simply means that the
> >>> system can cache
> >> If you need the stack you don't have any less cache foot print.
> >> If you don't need it you don't have any either.
> >
> > This part I don't understand.
> I was just objecting to your claim that small stack implies smaller
> cache foot print.

The cache I referred to is called DRAM, not L1.


Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good,
you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-- Howard Aiken quoted by Ken Iverson quoted by Jim Horning quoted by
Raph Levien, 1979
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-20 22:35    [W:0.151 / U:0.668 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site