Kenneth Chen wrote: > Keith Owens wrote on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 12:57 AM > > > > The cache lines are not guaranteed to be 128 byte aligned, they > > were 64 on bigsur. Change 127 to (L1_CACHE_BYTES - 1). > > That did cross my mind and L1_CACHE_BYTES is such a misleading > name. In my head, L1 means the cache level closest to the CPU > core, but here it appears to represent last level cache line. > Do we have the numbering scheme reversed? I have no idea what's > going on here. I agree that L1_CACHE_BYTES is misleading. Looking at the usage, most (if not all) references expect the last (external/FSB) cache line size, not caches closer to the core. As Jes points out SMP_CACHE_BYTES is more what they mean. Why not just call it CACHE_BYTES, meaning the last cache level. Handling of caches closer to the core most likely should be through PAL, or, it really needed, use the engineering cache level prefix. -- Russ Anderson, OS RAS/Partitioning Project Lead SGI - Silicon Graphics Inc rja@sgi.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Wed Feb 01 02:27:50 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-02-01 02:27:59 EST