From owner-freebsd-current Sat Apr 8 12:47:48 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id MAA21313 for current-outgoing; Sat, 8 Apr 1995 12:47:48 -0700 Received: from ref.tfs.com (ref.tfs.com [140.145.254.251]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id MAA21307 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 1995 12:47:47 -0700 Received: (from phk@localhost) by ref.tfs.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id MAA22769; Sat, 8 Apr 1995 12:47:32 -0700 From: Poul-Henning Kamp Message-Id: <199504081947.MAA22769@ref.tfs.com> Subject: Re: Disk performance To: rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com (Rodney W. Grimes) Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 12:47:31 -0700 (PDT) Cc: taob@gate.sinica.edu.tw, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199504081945.MAA15893@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> from "Rodney W. Grimes" at Apr 8, 95 12:45:38 pm Content-Type: text Content-Length: 796 Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > > > > Why would taking out the L2 cache slow down data transfer to and > > > from the primary cache? > > > > because checking the L2 takes time, and they don't start the mem-cycle > > until they know they missed. > > You would be right if he was talking about why turning off the L2 cache > increases memory speed. But that is not what he said ``taking out L2 > cache slowing down L1 cache''. Nothing, nota, zippo, should effect > L1 cache speeds other than code changes, and internal clock frequency. Sure, but they still need to get the stuff to put in the L1 for their test from RAM, right ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp -- TRW Financial Systems, Inc. 'All relevant people are pertinent' && 'All rude people are impertinent' => 'no rude people are relevant'