[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:0.019 / U:23.556 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site